If I may be allowed a flippant remark to start: badly. Apart from the immediate campaigns of 1941/2, in which Japanese armour encountered largely under-equipped allied formations, Japanese tanks suffered heavily against Allied armour.

In general, Japanese tanks were largely inferior to Allied tanks throughout the war, and often came out worse in tank-on-tank engagements. This was largely a consequence of Japanese tank design: most Japanese tanks short of the Type 3 Chi-Nu, which was never shipped outside of the home islands, were designed for infantry support (itself a product of the army's secondary status to the navy), and though relatively robust, had inferior armour protection and poor armour-piercing qualities in their guns, and also suffered from economisation issues, due to material shortages in Japan.

Consequently, Allied forces often had a significant advantage in armour when it could be brought to bear, in particular the British Infantry Tank Mk.II 'Matilda', proving to be incredibly difficult for Japanese tanks to overcome due to its strong armour protection. This advantage can be seen in the prioritisation of the European theatre for tank reinforcements - following the resolution of the Desert Campaign, British tanks were dispatched eastwards due to their obsolescence and replacement in the European theatre, where they continued to prove viable against Japanese armour.

In similar fashion, American tanks often outmatched those of the Japanese, the M3 Stuart being roughly equivalent to that of the Type 97, although was somewhat outmatched in gunpower following the update to the latter's 47mm gun (notably they remained of comparable armour). The M3 and M4 medium tanks however were generally superior in almost every aspect to the Type 97, which was largely regarded as Japan's best tank, and although the terrain in which Allied and Japanese forces engaged did offer the Type 97 increased effectiveness compared to open country, its gun penetration was generally insufficient against the M3 and M4's sloped frontal armour at nearly all combat ranges. With both numbers and more modern designs on their side, the Allies had a clear advantage in sheer armour-to-armour comparisons.

With regards to alternative anti-tank armaments, both sides, particularly the Japanese, utilised a plethora of different equipment in order to overcome enemy tanks. In general, this equipment was comparatively light, especially in comparison to the European theatre, which saw the proliferation of increasingly heavy anti-tank weapons, such as the notable 88mm or the 17-pounder. Instead, most formations in the eastern theatres continued to rely on anti-tank weapons from the beginning of the war, although anti-tank rifles, such as the Type 97 20mm became increasingly rare as their obsolescence mounted, and as such would not have been widespread by the time of Kohima/Imphal campaign. The most notable anti-tank weapons for the Japanese were the Type 94 37mm anti-tank gun and the Type 1 47mm, both of which were comparatively light, manhandled anti-tank weapons, easily capable of handling an M3 Stuart at jungle ranges according to Macksey, but which began to struggle against heavier allied designs. These were accompanied by anti-tank grenades, as well as magnetic mines, and improvised explosive charges, although it is worth noting that the Japanese developed their own version of the Bazooka towards the end of the war, although it never left the Home Islands.

On the Allied side, anti-tank guns and rocket/projectile launchers were more predominant as anti-tank weapons. For the British/Commonwealth forces, these consisted of the 2- and 6-pounder anti-tank guns, which remained largely effective against any/all Japanese armour, and the PIAT, which although dubious in the eyes of many soldiers, was standard issue for Commonwealth forces, although the No.75 Hawkins anti-tank grenade was also available, but it is unclear in what amounts.

The relative reliance of British forces on PIATs as opposed to other forms of anti-tank weapon is unclear, but it is more likely that anti-tank guns or armour were the first resort if available, following the pattern of other theatres. However the PIAT was more ubiquitous than either, being a standard issue personal weapon, and so would certainly have been more numerous.

I hope that this answer has assisted you in your enquiry.

Macksey, Kenneth, A History of the Royal Armoured Corps and its Predecessors, 1914 to 1975 (Beaminster: Newtown Publications, 1983)

Ogorkiewicz, Tanks: 100 Years of Evolution, (2016)

Searle, Alaric, Armoured Warfare, (London: Bloomsbury, 2017)

Coox, Alvin, 'The Effectiveness of the Japanese Military Establishment in the Second World War' in Military Effectiveness Vol.3, ed. Millett and Murray, (Cambridge, 2010) - this text is particularly enlightening on Japan's material situation

Burma was an unusual case. There were limited tank-vs-tank encounters. Imphal/Kohima required the attacking forces to make long flank marches through difficult country. The two sides were miles apart, monitoring one another through guerrillas and patrols. Preceding battles at the Admin Box saw the use of Allied Lees, but again the Japanese did not get tanks to the battlefield.

Japanese tanks were encountered on the Tiddim Road once the British started their southerly drive, but 'in its retreat, the Japanese 14th Tank Regiment left some 30 tanks littering the roadside, some still manned by the corpses of their disease-ridden crews. Among the Type 95s and 97s were a few Stuarts'.

In a later attempt to counter attack the Allied force driving on Meiktila 'the 14th bungled even this simple operation. (After air attacks) two thirds of the regiment's strength was left burning or wrecked along the roads of central Burma' before the remainder arrived at Meiktila to be deployed as pill-boxes.

The Japanese mostly relied on 75mm field guns and 37mm anti-tank guns, as well as trained soldiers who used pole and satchel charges, placed by hand. These weapons could penetrate the side or rear armour of a Lee, or armoured car, at the short ranges possible. On the whole very few tanks were destroyed by such action, some being lost when damaged and enemy infantry were able to drive back the infantry escort of the tanks.

There were a few battles early in the campaign between Japanese Type 95s and 7th Cavalry Stuarts, the British generally getting the best thanks to their armoured warfare experience and being on the defensive, but these battles meant little in the overall campaign with the British being continuously outflanked and kept off balance.

Tank Tracks to Rangoon, Bryan Perrett.