German tanks in Japanese service

Main gun, hull gun, turret gun, weight, etc.

 

What tank do you mean by "#4", I do not understand.

 

I believe.

 

Thanks Smiles.
Pardon me. Should have been clear. ..The statistics for the tank shown in post #4.
Sorry for that Ae Sun.

 

It's the Type5 Chi-Ri II.


Crew: 5 men
Length: 8.5 m
Width: 3 m
High: 3.1 m
Weight: 45 tonnes
Engine: Kawasaki Type98 with 550PS
Speed: 55km/h (onroad)
Range: 260km (onroad)
Suspension: bell crank
Armor: 25-100mm
Main armament: Type5 7,5cm Tank Gun Model I (Auto loading mechanic)
Secondary armament: 1x 37mm Type1 AT-gun + 2x 7,7mm Type97 MG

Type5 7,5cm


Japanese name : 五式七糎半戦車砲I型
Gun Weight : Unknown
Barrel Langth : L/56
Cartridge : 75 x 604R
Produced : 1945
elevation/depression angle : -15 to +20


AP


English name : Type1 AP
Japanese name : 一式徹甲弾
Penetration : 150mm @ 100m estimated

HE
English name : Type4 HE
Japanese name : 四式榴弾
Penetration : 55mm
HE

English name : Type4 HE High Penetration
Japanese name : 四式榴弾
Penetration : 140mm @ 500m



Type1 37mm

Japanese name : 一式三十七粍戦車砲
Gun Weight : 235.5kg
Barrel Langth : L/45.9
Cartridge : 37 x 249R
Produced : 1941
elevation/depression angle : -15 to +20

AP


English name : Type1 AP
Japanese name : 一式徹甲弾
Penetration : 60mm @ 250m

 

Whoa.
You have guns yourself, Ae Sun.
Respect.

 

Here are a couple of tidbits

The captured Chinese MK I was reportedly handed over to Mitsubushi for study.

Here is the wiki entry for the Type 3 Chi-Nu


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_3_Chi-Nu

I agree with the others that this is a nice new thread. Thanks

 

Spidey senses are tingling.

Ae, it's raining and you are late for an important meeting. A young man with a facial deformity bumps into you, then accuses you of stealing his wallet.
What do you do?
If you pass the test, you may proceed.

 

Drive over him with my Type 3 Chi-Nu, and explain my late arrival at the meeting. By way of compensation, I buy everyone lunch with the cash in my new wallet.

 

"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill every one you meet."

You have to love Marines.

 

I think I have just found my senior quote for my school's yearbook :evillaugh:

 

I thought if you grab the pebble,' it's time for you to leave'', not proceed?

 

The 16 best quotes from the retiring Gen. James Mattis
http://www.onemarinesview.com/one_marines_view/2013/09/the-16-best-quotes-from-the-retiring-gen-james-mattis.html

 

"

Holden: You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down...
Leon: What one?
Holden: What?
Leon: What desert?
Holden: It doesn't make any difference what desert, it's completely hypothetical.
Leon: But, how come I'd be there?
Holden: Maybe you're fed up. Maybe you want to be by yourself. Who knows? You look down and see a tortoise, Leon. It's crawling toward you...
Leon: Tortoise? What's that?
Holden: [irritated by Leon's interruptions] You know what a turtle is?
Leon: Of course!
Holden: Same thing.
Leon: I've never seen a turtle... But I understand what you mean.
Holden: You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back, Leon.
Leon: Do you make up these questions, Mr. Holden? Or do they write 'em down for you?
Holden: The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.
Leon: [angry at the suggestion] What do you mean, I'm not helping?
Holden: I mean: you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?
[Leon has become visibly shaken]
Holden: They're just questions, Leon. In answer to your query, they're written down for me. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response... Shall we continue?

 

I'd be interested in hearing what tough questions he was asking the civilian "officials" about Iran.

 

Wow, big words, big mouth....
Better in what way ?
Above type 5 Chi-Ri ? lighter than tiger , yes....is lighter better in muddy tropical terrain, yes...but is the Chi-ri SUFFICIENTLY light to operate in muddy tropical terrain...???? (no..)

The small (and shitty !) Japanese tanks of 1941 were also NOT explicitly designed for muddy tropical terrain...
If so, then the tankettes of France, Italy and Poland of 1939 were also designed for muddy tropical terrain.
Small does not mean, "designed for tropical islands".

Japanese tanks were intended for CHINA, MONGOLIA and generally anything in Asia which has hardened roads, town, cities, and specifically where an enemy machine gun position had to be eliminated. THAT was the purpose. Not the mud of remote pacific islands.

 

What is a study worth if it is fed with the wrong intentions and sentiments ?
The same with holocaust disbelievers...

Didn't you (Ae Sun) learn that the FIRST principles of making a study is being neutral, openminded , unbiased and objective ?
Gather data first, and assume a well argumented conlusion at the end?

 

Where is the proof that it was knocked out by a type 97 tank Chi Ha ? More common was tankmine, artillery, breakdown...

But here is a book about the "duel" (on Philippines though):
M4 Sherman vs Type 97 Chi-Ha (Duel)
http://www.amazon.com/M4-Sherman-Type-Chi-Ha-Duel-ebook/dp/B007X3M30W
and read a review:
Even if you are a specialist reader with bookshelves groaning under the weight of books on the Second World War, it is unlikely that you have much (if anything) on battles between American and Japanese tanks in the Pacific War. Well-known armor historian Steven J. Zaloga fills that gap with M4 Sherman vs. Type 97 Chi-Ha, the 43rd volume in Osprey's popular Duel series. The author has a reputation for detail and insight, which is fully on display in this volume. Frankly, I was amazed at the consistent level of detail - from both sides - that the author was able to put into each armored action described. This is tactical military history at its best. The volume also is complemented by a superb graphics package, with great artwork and B/W photos. Overall, M4 Sherman vs. Type 97 Chi-Ha is one of the author's best works in recent years and warrants a place in any Pacific War library.

The author begins by sketching Japan's development of the Type 97 medium tank in the mid-1930s and the realization after the defeat by Soviet tanks at Nomonhan in 1939 that serious upgrades were needed. The Japanese took the existing Type 97 and upgraded it with thicker armor and a high-velocity 47-mm gun that had a better chance to defeat tanks like the Soviet BT-7. In addition to upgrading their current medium tank, the Japanese began to create armored divisions, in case they had to fight the Red Army again. The author then shifts gears and discusses the development of the M4A3 medium tank, which has also been discussed in two previous Duel-series titles. In technical specifications, the author compares the Type 97 versus the M4A3 Sherman in terms of firepower, protection, mobility and command & control; the M4A3 had a clear advantage in every area but mobility. In this section, there are two color plates depicting cut-away views of the interior of each tank's turret.

The next section discusses the combatants, with which discusses the composition of each tank's crew and their training, as well as battalion/regiment organization. This section was very interesting and detailed, but I was a bit disappointed that it lacked the profile sidebars that this series usually has. I'm guessing that the author could not find enough information on a specific Japanese tanker involved in this campaign to profile. I always found that these sidebars help to put a "human face" on the duel equation. The author also uses this section to set the stage for the Duel, which pits the Japanese 7th Tank Regiment against the U.S. 716th Tank Battalion. The author spends six pages discussing the strategic situation in the Philippines Campaign of 1944-45 and how these forces came to be deployed against each other. The section on combat covers several specific tank-on-tank actions in the Philippines in January-February 1945. In short, the 7th Tank Regiment was ordered to conduct a defense with limited artillery support and was gradually beaten to pieces by U.S. mixed tank-infantry teams. As the author notes, Japanese anti-tank ambush tactics were often conducted at point-blank range and could be very lethal. However, he also points out how Japanese senior commanders mis-used their armor by parceling it out in small groups and forcing it to defend too much terrain. The author's tactical narrative is highly detailed and supported by maps and very relevant photos. Overall, a very good addition to the Duel series and a fine piece of military history on a neglected subject.




absolutely no surprises...

 

Takao shaped it into a question, but really as a self proclaimed studier (student) you should pick this up as strong suggestion:
Then CHECK IT out and make it a special focus of attention..

Because at least in the jap cargo ships that were made in 44, the steel quality WAS deteriorating (big ship = big material = big savings). Makes perfect sense.
Why not then for tanks as well..
Still, it can be compensated for with more thickness (like with timber)..but then the effect is 30 mm jap steel thickness in 1945 is not the same as 30 mm US steel plate thickness...



Here is hint:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.htm

Ballistic Tests on the IJN Shinano's Turret Face Armor By Nathan Okun

STEEL QUALITY:
Steel had many tiny pieces of dirt and so forth, being about the same as pre-WWI British Vickers Cemented (VC) KC-type armor steel in quality (VC was used for the first time in the Japanese battleship IJN KONGO, built in Britain, and manufactured in Japan under license thereafter), from which the unique Japanese armors New Vickers Non-Cemented (NVNC), the homogeneous, ductile form of VH used in a number of Japanese post-WWI warships, and VH itself was derived (this steel was not up to U.S., British, or German post-1930 steel quality). Carbon content was raised above VC steel level to increase ease of hardening, some copper added to allow some nickel (in short supply in Japan) to be removed (but not much), slight amount of molybdenum added to increase hardenability still more, and the cemented (carburized) thin surface layer used in VC (and in most other, foreign face-hardened armors) was eliminated with no loss of resistance from VC quality (a good design point). Surface of plate face was very smooth, unlike rough, pebbly surface of cemented plates, such as U.S. Navy Class "A" armor.

 

Dude, 45 ton Chi-Ri.... and the Panther is? 45 ton ...! and 700 PS. Hello ?!?
How does that fare better in the mud ? Better torque ? better traction ?)
(I am not a "mud" specialist, but I do believe there is more said about the russian mud that is sooooo sticky and heavy, and frankly there are youtube videos of it, as opposed to "the" mud in e.g. Solomons, Iwo Jima ?)