Japanese tanks

[Jeff]

I guess they were late for something...

 

 

Makes me think of all those people who set their chairs up on the outside of a turn in a road rally race, something goes wrong and you end up with a vehicle in your lap, in this case a tank.

[JasonJ]

 

 

[JasonJ]

[Gavin-Phillips]

Mitsubishi Type 16 "maneuver combat vehicle" or according to most websites "tank destroyer". Certainly looks the part. Are these now in service with the JGSDF?

[JasonJ]

Yeah, the pictures above are of the standard production version and are entering servive in some of the divisions, replacing tank units in the division. "Tank Destroyer" would be incorrect though. The main purpose is to enhence the mobility of the division, not just AT role.

[JasonJ]

Here are some MCVs at an open base festival day with the 14th brigade shooting blanks at a demonstration a few days ago.

 

Here's a fuller video of the demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PssDOFe3k0U

 

 

The 14th brigade and 8th division are the first to get MCVs. The blue English is mine.

 

The next image shows the change to divisions/brigades that receive MCVs.

http://www.mod.go.jp/gsdf/about/structure/index.html

[TOW-2]

Hey! A pretty decent Ha-Go walkthrough!

 

[MiloMorai]

Must be real nice in that turret after the gun is fired. (starting ~1:30)

[Gavin-Phillips]

Yeah, the pictures above are of the standard production version and are entering servive in some of the divisions, replacing tank units in the division. "Tank Destroyer" would be incorrect though. The main purpose is to enhence the mobility of the division, not just AT role.

 

Thank you for the update. Most the the articles I had read concerning the vehicle must've been older before any actual hardware acquisition had been made. As far as the term "tank destroyer" being used for the vehicle; I've seen that name been given to even self-propelled mortars and howitzers before.

 

Well I suppose if its tracked and has a gun, its a "tank", and if its wheeled and a gun its a tank destroyer?

[TTK Ciar]

I suppose if its tracked and has a gun, its a "tank", and if its wheeled and a gun its a tank destroyer?

If it's tracked, has a high-pressure large-caliber stabilized direct-fire gun, and nontrivial armor, it's a tank.

 

Everything else is "something else" -- assault gun, tank destroyer, self-propelled howitzer, self-propelled gun, armored gun system, whatever.

[Dark_Falcon]

Yeah, the pictures above are of the standard production version and are entering servive in some of the divisions, replacing tank units in the division. "Tank Destroyer" would be incorrect though. The main purpose is to enhance the mobility of the division, not just AT role.

 

Any intention to add a RWS? The current .50cal mount is unshielded and non-automated. A modern vehicle needs something better, especially for urban fighting.

[Ken Estes]

Nobody should take armor into urban fighting on purpose.

[2805662]

Any intention to add a RWS? The current .50cal mount is unshielded and non-automated. A modern vehicle needs something better, especially for urban fighting.

JGSDF havent done close combat since 1945. You can see the results of this in some of their equipment choices (like the .50 cal: contrast that with the shielding on the commanders 50 on the MGS).

[JasonJ]

It looks like they tested a RWS on a prototype vehicle. But I haven't noticed any plans to install RWS.

[JasonJ]

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.

[Gavin-Phillips]

 

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?

[JasonJ]

.

Edited July 12, 2018 by JasonJ

[Nikolas93TS]

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

[Gavin-Phillips]

 

 

 

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.

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.

[JasonJ]

.

Edited July 12, 2018 by JasonJ

[JasonJ]

.

Edited July 12, 2018 by JasonJ

[Jim Warford]

[Leo Niehorster]

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

 

--

Leo

[Stefan Kotsch]

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

 

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

[Panzermann]

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.