Jump to content


Photo

Japanese tanks


  • Please log in to reply
259 replies to this topic

#241 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,513 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 02 May 2018 - 1137 AM

 

Hey!  A pretty decent Ha-Go walkthrough!

 

Pretty neat that the museum let him poke around and get inside it, but it's probably good advertisement for the museum too. Next he should make a video on that LVT.

 

Its great to see some coverage of a Japanese WW2-period tank, some good footage of them being used there as well.  Great effort.  It does seem to be true to a large extent, they seem to have been more or less ignored for other vehicles such as the Sherman and T-34.  I also was not aware there was an ARV version of the Type 95.  That will give me something to look up when I have some spare time.  Were many produced I wonder?


  • 0

#242 JasonJ

JasonJ

    majideyabai

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,967 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:dokodoko?
  • Interests:Being odd and unusual.

Posted 02 May 2018 - 2111 PM

.

Edited by JasonJ, 12 July 2018 - 0506 AM.

  • 0

#243 Nikolas93TS

Nikolas93TS

    Thread necromancer and obscure questions

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 872 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trieste

Posted 04 May 2018 - 0950 AM

There is also an issue of linguistic barrier as reliable sources in English were and still are scarse, to put it mildly.
  • 0

#244 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,513 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 04 May 2018 - 1316 PM

 

 

 

Hey!  A pretty decent Ha-Go walkthrough!

 

Pretty neat that the museum let him poke around and get inside it, but it's probably good advertisement for the museum too. Next he should make a video on that LVT.

 

Its great to see some coverage of a Japanese WW2-period tank, some good footage of them being used there as well.  Great effort.  It does seem to be true to a large extent, they seem to have been more or less ignored for other vehicles such as the Sherman and T-34.  I also was not aware there was an ARV version of the Type 95.  That will give me something to look up when I have some spare time.  Were many produced I wonder?

 

 

WW2 tanks from Japan were pretty much ignored. I think the recent tank computers games have helped spark a little more genuine interest in them. When it comes to WW2 tanks grabbing the attention of people, the first stage is going to be the tanks that participated in the battles. So then Japanese tanks don't get much attention. Even me, tanks were very interesting to me ever since single digit years, but the big cats of Germany were the most interesting. Well it can't be helped. The tech tree tier based tank computer games drew in more interest into the development history of tanks. If the subject transitions from the actual battles to the developmental history, then Japanese tanks become much more interesting as there was quite a lot of stuff going on. Then comparing designs becomes more forgivable to Japan for factoring out production volume and production dates and the actual participation in battle. AFAIK, Japan first faced the M4 Sherman in late 1942. Before that, Type 1 Ho-Ni designed as fire support was pretty much already fully developed. Chi-Ha hull mounting 75mmL38 field gun.The gun was finished in May 1941, was mounted on a medium tank hull and carried out 400km drive testing in June, shooting tests in October. Production began in mid 1942 and units stationed in Manchuria received some. They would later be redirected to the Philippines but most were lost at sea to American forces. If none were sunk, a more interest grabbing tank battle for early stage tank enthusiasts might have occurred in the Philippines. 

 

Still though, pretty hard to not say that medium designs lagged a bit, even at design stage. The Type 1 Chi-He was generally finished being designed by late 1941 which featured some improvements over Type 97 Chi-Ha such as welded armor but still kind of small and mounting the 47mm. Design planning for the successor of the Type 1 Chi-He started fairly soon afterwards in April of 1942, but design requirements were at this point quite modest in comparison to the tank development trend going on in other countries; 20 tons, 47mm or 57mm, 50mm of armor, top speed of 40kph. Granted it was still before they faced the M4 Sherman. I think it goes to show how good a design the M4 was. Sloped armor of 50-60mm with more on the turret, 30 ton class, multi-purpose 75mm gun in revolving turret. The April 1942 design was completed in January 1943 but then in the following month, design requirements changed to 24 tons, 57mm gun, 75mm armor, top speed of 45kph. However the first prototype took a long time to make because of material shortages and other projects getting priority, with a delayed plan of finishing the prototype vehicle in March 1944, but still not completed by that delayed planned date, finally completed in May 1944, and formalized as the Type 4 Chi-To. To add the end of the tale, requirement would then change again to replace the 57mm tank gun with the long Type 5 75mm tank gun, which was having some of its owns delays. I suppose that if the problem with material shortages and priority in other projects had not existed, then the January 1943 design probably could have been completed and all tested out by late 1943, making it an Ok-ish design but still weaker than M4. Certainly an improvement over Type 97 Shihoto tanks. Well it is also worth noting that the delays of the Chi-To tank had the Japanese make the Type 3 Chi-Nu as an emergency stop gap tank, development starting in May 1943 and a prototype finished in September 1943, production beginning in 1944.

 

To the Ha-Go based ARV, called the Ri-Ki, it looks like the drawing in his video is not really accurate in that it uses the same suspension as a regular Ha-Go. Here is a picture of the Ri-Ki that the drawing appears to be based off of.

riki.jpg

According to "Japanese Tanks" authored by Hara no Tomio "the father of Japanese tanks" but published in 1978, past June of 1944, 13 are recorded as being made by Hitachi. It is unknown how many were made by others. They did make prototypes of a larger ARV based off of the Chi-Ha called the Se-Ri, but seems mostly just prototypes. There is variety of other engineer vehicles made before the Ri-Ki.

 

Thanks for the information, JasonJ.

 

My main interest in wartime heavy tanks is mostly Russian-orientated (KV, early IS, even the T-35 plus the T-39 concept design) although there are others like the British Churchill and the French Char B.  I sometimes wonder what the designers of the Panther/Tiger/Tiger II would think of just how much interest there still is today with the vehicles they drew up all those years ago?  Even the more oddball designs like Maus and E-100 still attract alot of attention.

 

At least giving some coverage to WW2-era Japanese tanks and other armour is the AFV Profile series of publications.  Number 49 and 54 cover a variety of medium and light tanks, tankettes and some other designs as well.  You can get these pretty cheap and I've found them to be quite good sources of information for vehicles such as PT-76 amphibious tank and Churchill/Sherman specialist variants.


  • 0

#245 JasonJ

JasonJ

    majideyabai

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,967 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:dokodoko?
  • Interests:Being odd and unusual.

Posted 04 May 2018 - 1844 PM

.

Edited by JasonJ, 12 July 2018 - 0506 AM.

  • 0

#246 JasonJ

JasonJ

    majideyabai

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,967 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:dokodoko?
  • Interests:Being odd and unusual.

Posted 04 May 2018 - 1915 PM

.

Edited by JasonJ, 12 July 2018 - 0505 AM.

  • 0

#247 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,072 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 October 2018 - 2255 PM


  • 0

#248 Leo Niehorster

Leo Niehorster

    Meow

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,486 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hannover, Germany
  • Interests:Military History

Posted 11 October 2018 - 0224 AM

Is this useful in a tank? Or a needless complication?

 

--

Leo


  • 0

#249 Stefan Kotsch

Stefan Kotsch

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 699 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ludwigslust, Germany
  • Interests:Tanks - fire control, guns, ammo, autoloader

Posted 11 October 2018 - 0325 AM

A nice thing. Useful certainly only when shooting from the spot without movement.

 

I guess once, in practice, this is rather little used?


  • 0

#250 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,141 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 11 October 2018 - 0628 AM

Is this useful in a tank? Or a needless complication?

 

--

Leo

 

 

A nice thing. Useful certainly only when shooting from the spot without movement.

 

I guess once, in practice, this is rather little used?

 

 

they have had adjustable suspensions since the Type 74 on their tanks, so the japanese armour troops must find it useful.

Keep in mind the japanese prepare for defense of their homeland and for defensive positions hull down this is awesome. Looking over hill ridges etc etc. to have a better field of fire. Also the many mountains in Japan require to shoot upwards or downwards which is also helped by adjusting the hull.

 

 

stefan imagine the T-72 had this. One could finally overcome the meak -5° cannon depression. Or rather work around it.


  • 0

#251 Stefan Kotsch

Stefan Kotsch

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 699 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ludwigslust, Germany
  • Interests:Tanks - fire control, guns, ammo, autoloader

Posted 11 October 2018 - 1320 PM

The peculiarities of Japanese geography are well known to me. As far as the depression of armament is concerned, I think that is overrated. From my NVA practice I am not aware of any example where there was a significant disadvantage. That's why my question about nice theory and actual practice.


  • 0

#252 alejandro_

alejandro_

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,049 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxfordshire, UK
  • Interests:History, cinema, football, aviation, armour, military history.

Posted 11 October 2018 - 1539 PM

From my NVA practice I am not aware of any example where there was a significant disadvantage.

 

What about in hull down positions?

 

https://upload.wikim...ank_diagram.png


  • 0

#253 Stefan Kotsch

Stefan Kotsch

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 699 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ludwigslust, Germany
  • Interests:Tanks - fire control, guns, ammo, autoloader

Posted 11 October 2018 - 1627 PM

The representation in picture was adapted to the usual idea of ​​this thing. In fact, this representation is completely worthless.

 

i think so. The depression of the weapon is not necessary to fire horizontally over the ridge, It would be helpful if you can shoot at targets if these are located well below the ridge. However, it is never recommended to choose a static firing position on the ridge. Behind the ridge or in front of the ridge. Never on the ridge.

 

To prevent a misunderstanding. I think maximum depression is a desirable feature. But you can not expect too much.

 

The max. depression of the T-72 gunner sight TPD-K1 line of sight is -15 degrees. The gunner can "full programm" aiming in turret down position, then drive briefly forward, shoot and drive  back. There is the problem rather the slow reverse.


Edited by Stefan Kotsch, 11 October 2018 - 1631 PM.

  • 0

#254 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,093 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 11 October 2018 - 1750 PM

The peculiarities of Japanese geography are well known to me. As far as the depression of armament is concerned, I think that is overrated. From my NVA practice I am not aware of any example where there was a significant disadvantage. That's why my question about nice theory and actual practice.

NVA?


  • 0

#255 JasonJ

JasonJ

    majideyabai

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,967 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:dokodoko?
  • Interests:Being odd and unusual.

Posted 11 October 2018 - 1807 PM

They can still move after adjusting the suspension. So position behind ridge, change suspension posture, crawl up, fire, roll back, return suspension to normal posture, be on your way to where ever,

From 0:49

 

From 0:20

 

Part of the design intention with he Type 74 was to make as small of a target as possible since it was figured that enough armor would not be possible to design while keeping the tank weight's light. So changing the suspension enables it to better reduce the amount of exposure when shooting over a ridge. Most tanks would have to expose full hull before able to shoot over the hill, the Type 74 would be better at limiting exposure to just the turret. With the Type 10, the Type 10s at the platoon level are networked with C4I, information is automatically updated, shared, and displayed on panels including enemy positions. So a Type 10 can knowingly expect an enemy tank at certain location before adjusting the suspension, rolling up above the ridge to only expose the turret for a moment's worth of time, fire a shot, and roll back behind ridge cover.


Edited by JasonJ, 11 October 2018 - 1810 PM.

  • 0

#256 Tim Sielbeck

Tim Sielbeck

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 195 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Tanks, Steel Beasts, WW1 aviation, Epees

Posted 11 October 2018 - 2145 PM

NVA?

 

 

It's GermanNationale Volksarmee – NVA,  the name used for the armed forces of the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR)


  • 0

#257 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,093 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 12 October 2018 - 0501 AM

 

NVA?

 

 

It's GermanNationale Volksarmee – NVA,  the name used for the armed forces of the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR)

 

The old East Germany. Thank you. 


  • 0

#258 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,141 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 12 October 2018 - 1324 PM

The peculiarities of Japanese geography are well known to me. As far as the depression of armament is concerned, I think that is overrated. From my NVA practice I am not aware of any example where there was a significant disadvantage. That's why my question about nice theory and actual practice.

 

Then I must have been the unlucky bastard who ran into the cannon hitting the the stop on the turret roof on two occasions. Once in bergen, once in the Munster training areas. They were so perfect hole and hill respectively, but the incline was obviously too steep and we had to relocate and look for a new position to go hulldown in.  With an adjustable suspension we could have compensated.


  • 0

#259 nitflegal

nitflegal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, martial arts

Posted 15 October 2018 - 0733 AM

I'm really looking forward to getting my copy of David Lister's new book but as someone very interested in Japanese WW2 tanks, this new write-up as a preview has me excited!

 

http://www.tanks-enc....com/mitsu-104/


  • 0

#260 JasonJ

JasonJ

    majideyabai

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,967 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:dokodoko?
  • Interests:Being odd and unusual.

Posted 15 October 2018 - 0947 AM

I'm really looking forward to getting my copy of David Lister's new book but as someone very interested in Japanese WW2 tanks, this new write-up as a preview has me excited!

 

http://www.tanks-enc....com/mitsu-104/

 

Unfortunately, it smells fishy. Something interesting was likely found but something like faulty ally intelligence or Japanese deception but the excitement from finding something new is leading to conclusions and a narrative that has no basing.

 

For starters, the second paragraph in the link is as follows:

 

One of the few dead ends that the Japanese did encounter, however, was the multi-turreted tank, the Mitsu-104, which was most likely a development of the Type 97 Heavy tank, which was the one heavy tank the Japanese had that went into service.

 

The problem is that the Japanese have never had a heavy tank in service. The furthest developed heavy tank was the Type 95 which had some limited experimental or for show use. There is no mention of a Type 97 heavy tank in any of the dozens of Japanese tank books that I have or else where that I have gone exploring in. Not even in Japanese wiki. He continues to imply that a Type 97 heavy was built later in the article. If such a tank was made, it would most certainly get mentioned in Japanese materials. Imperial Japanese tanks generally get the "Type" designation upon more or less the completion of the prototype and testing. There is no mention anywhere of a heavy tank development program around the time period that "Type 97" would imply. 97 would be for imperial year 2597 or 1937. Same year for the medium tank, the Type 97 Chi-Ha. At this time, Japanese tank industry was not under such pressure like in 1944/45 so a heavy tank being developed and tested and entering service around 1937 should most definitely get recorded in various kinds of records in the 1937 period.

 

I'm also bothered by the article speaking in a very normalizing or familiarizing kind of tone with other mentioned heavy tank designs called "Ai-96" and "Ishi 108" coming in addition to "Mitsu 104". None of these names exists in Japanese materials nor does something that did exist under a different name could fit such descriptions.


  • 0




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users