PDA

View Full Version : Type 3 medium tank Chi-Nu



tom!
09-27-2006, 11:53 AM
Hi.

Due to the interest shown in th type 95 Ha-Go thread I started this new thread.

There is a series of production photos of the type 3 medium tank Chi-Nu in issue 12 of the tank power series "Japanese Armour vol. 4" (aj-press):

http://www.ww2technik.de/Bilderchen/jappanzer/mittel/jap%20typ%203%20chi-nu%20stuetzrollen%20montiert.jpg

http://www.ww2technik.de/Bilderchen/jappanzer/mittel/jap%20typ%203%20chi-nu%20antriebsrad%20montiert.jpg

http://www.ww2technik.de/Bilderchen/jappanzer/mittel/typ%203/jap%20typ%203%20chi-nu%20fahrwerk%20montiert.jpg


Yours

tom! ;)

tom!
09-27-2006, 11:59 AM
Hi.

And some pics of the tank:

http://www.ww2technik.de/Bilderchen/jappanzer/mittel/typ%203/jap%20typ%203%20chi-nu%208.jpg

http://www.ww2technik.de/Bilderchen/jappanzer/mittel/typ%203/jap%20typ%203%20chi-nu%206.jpg

http://www.ww2technik.de/Bilderchen/jappanzer/mittel/typ%203/jap%20typ%203%20chi-nu%20unit.jpg

Yours

tom! ;)

Panzerknacker
09-27-2006, 07:22 PM
Very good Tom, rare pics there.



http://www2.cc22.ne.jp/%7Eharada/j_t/jt_jpg/chi_nu_1.jpg


http://www2.cc22.ne.jp/%7Eharada/j_t/jt_jpg/chi_nu_3.jpg


3D art from this excellent website.

http://www2.cc22.ne.jp/%7Eharada/english/profile_e.html

Nickdfresh
09-28-2006, 08:49 PM
Excellent pics guys, thanks! It was actually a somewhat formidable looking machine, at least compared to earlier Japanese armor.

Nickdfresh
09-28-2006, 08:51 PM
Here's the Wilki stats on the Type 3 Chi-nu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_3_Chi-Nu) if anybody is interested.

tom!
09-29-2006, 09:59 AM
Hi.

Some informations in the Wikipedia-article you linked are different from mine:

a) The type 3 was an improved version of the type 1 medium tank Chi-He and only used the same suspension as the type 97 medium tank Chi-Ha.

The hull and the superstructure of the type 97 medium tank Chi-Ha was different in many pionts:

- nuts and bolts instead of welding
- maximum armour of 25 mm instead of 50 mm
- curved armour plates instead of flat armour plates
- smaller engine compartment and therefore different form of the vehicle´s rear part
- smaller turret ring diameter
- turret ring position shifted to the right instead of center position

b) Ammunition:
7,5 cm tank gun: 70 total
standard mix: 35 HE, 35 AP
storage: turret rear 2 X 20 grenades, below fighting compartment: 30 grenades

http://www.ww2technik.de/Bilderchen/jappanzer/mittel/typ%203/jap%20typ%203%20turmheck%20colour.jpg
inside view turret rear

7,7 mm tank maschine gun: 3670 rounds in magazines and ammunition boxes
storage: below maschine gun port under the wireless equipment, left side of the fighting compartment, below the fighting compartment

The tank mg could be easily removed and used as aa-mg with the mg-lafette in front of the gunners hatch.

c) The total number of production is not clear. Following japanese sources at least 124 had been built. The numer varies between 120 and up to 168.


http://www.ww2technik.de/Bilderchen/jappanzer/waffen/jap%20typ%203%2075%20mm%20gun%20visierhalter%20col our.jpg
inside view gun mount left side

http://www.ww2technik.de/Bilderchen/jappanzer/waffen/jap%20typ%203%2075%20mm%20gun%20verschluss%20recht s.jpg
inside view gun mount right side

Yours

tom! ;)

SeattleGamer
12-14-2006, 03:28 PM
I just joined up and found this thread. Nice!

I'm interested in tracking down production numbers for Japanese AFVs. I have noted that Type 3 Chi-Nu is sometimes listed as 60 and other times 66 built. However, Tom posted that "The total number of production is not clear. Following japanese sources at least 124 had been built. The numer varies between 120 and up to 168."

Where did 124, 120 and 168 come from?

I'm aware that on the net, anything can be copied and reposted, so the numbers I've seen (60 or 66) could simply be in error, which becomes "fact" because it gets repeated so often.

Also, does anyone have values for other vehicles? Or can anyone point me to any online (or other) sources? Many thanks.

Steve

George Eller
12-15-2006, 10:31 AM
I just joined up and found this thread. Nice!

I'm interested in tracking down production numbers for Japanese AFVs. I have noted that Type 3 Chi-Nu is sometimes listed as 60 and other times 66 built. However, Tom posted that "The total number of production is not clear. Following japanese sources at least 124 had been built. The numer varies between 120 and up to 168."

Where did 124, 120 and 168 come from?

I'm aware that on the net, anything can be copied and reposted, so the numbers I've seen (60 or 66) could simply be in error, which becomes "fact" because it gets repeated so often.

Also, does anyone have values for other vehicles? Or can anyone point me to any online (or other) sources? Many thanks.

Steve

-

Hi Steve,

Hope this helps.

TAKI'S HOME PAGE
IMPERIAL JAPANESE ARMY PAGE
http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/

The descriptions and data of this page are all based on Japanese sources,
and they are translated into English directly.


Type 3 Medium Tank "Chi-Nu"
http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/chi-nu.htm

Introduced Year : 1944
Weight : 18.8 ton
Dimensions: 5.73 x 2.33 x 2.61(h) m
Armor (max) : 50 mm
Speed (max) : 39 km/hr
Engine : Diesel Engine 240 PS/2000 rpm
Armaments : Type 3 75 mm x 1, Type 97 7.7 mm x 1
Crew : 5
Production Qty : 166

This tank was developed in order to cope with M4 Sherman. Its hull is the same of Chi-He and its gun was converted from Type 90 field gun. Chi-Nu was deployed in Japan proper to prevent expected Allied invasion.

-

tom!
12-15-2006, 10:36 AM
Hi.

Many documents regarding armament development and wartime production have been destroyed before surrender. So original documents are rare.

The US military spend much time and money in regaining the armament development data but as the japanese tank tech was far inferiour to the german tank tech only limited research was done in this direction.

Most production data I´ve seen were copied from various US pre-war and post-war intel reports and can not be trusted.

The former commander of the japanese Army Technical Branch, Mr Hara Tomio, is author and co-author of some japanese publications on this topic.
I don´t know if the production numbers he mentioned are correct.

Maybe you should contact Mr. Takizawa Akira at http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/.

Number of afv by types (afaik):

foreign armoured vehicles
Mark IV female: 1
Whippet: ca. 6
type 79/ko-gata(Renault FT 17 and FT 18): ca. 13
Austin AC: > 2
Renaulf 6wheel AC: > 1
Vickers Crossley AC: > 10
Wolseley AC: > 2
St. Chamond M21 Wheelcumtrack: 1
Vickers Mk. C: 3
otsu-gata/ Renault NC 27:10
type Ka tankette/Carden-Loyd Mark VI: 6
Vickers 6t: 2 + some captured in China after 1937
Vickers amphibious tank: 1 captured in China
US light M3: more than 50 captured on the Philippines and in Burma

captured AFV with evidence of use in japanese units in unknown numbers (at least for test purposes):
- KNIL Krupp APC
- KNIL ovaervalwagen
- KNIL light Mk VI
- Bren carrier
- US M3 halftrack
- US M3 halftrack with 75 mm howitzer
- chinese T26
- chinese Panzer I
- soviet BA 64
- soviet BA 10

japanese models:
Experimental tank No. 1: 1
type 88 experimental tank: design study only
type 89 medium tank ("Chi-Ro""):
- version Ko (gasoline engine): ca. 278
- version Otsu (Diesel engine): ca. 126
experimental amphibious halftrack "AMP": 1-2 prototype(s)
type 91 experimental heavy tank: 1 (reworked experimental tank No. 1)
"Hokoku" AC: 2 (or more, maybe as donation, designation after an vehicle inscription on the pics taken in Shanghai 1932)
"Hokoku-Go"/"Osaka" AC: 1
"type 92" AC: > 2
"Aikoku"/"Sumida" AC: ca. 100
type 91 AC "So-Mo": ca 1000
type 92 heavy armoured vehicle: 167
armoured engineer vehicle "SS": > 98 in 5 versions
experimental amphibious tank SR-I: 1
type 94 tk special tractor: 843
dynamo vehicle "Ka-Ha": 4
type 95 armoured railroad car "So-Ki": 121
type 95 crane vehicle "Ri-Ki": < 100
type 95 experimental heavy tank: 4
experimental amphibious tank SR-II: at least 2
type 95 light tank "Ha-Go": ca. 2377
experimental amphibious tank SR-III: 1
type 97 tankette "Te-Ke": 593
type 97 pole planter: < 50
type 97 cable layer: < 50
type 97 experimental medium tank "Chi-Ni": 1
type 97 medium tank "Chi-Ha": ca. 1450
type 97 command tank "Shi-Ki": > 20
type 97 mini engineer vehicle "Ya-I Go": ca 300
type 97 recovery tank "Se-Ri": few
type 98 light tank "Ke-Ni": ca. 115
type 98 armoured carrier "So-Da": > 50
experimental type 98 medium tank "Chi-Ho": 1
type 100 observation vehicle "Te-Re": > 10
type 97 medium tank "Shinhoto Chi-Ha": ca. 757 in 4 versions
type 1 medium tank "Chi-He": > 170
type 1 self-propelled gun "Ho-Ni I": >100
type 1 self-propelled gun "Ho-I": ca. 30
type 1 self-propelled gun "Ho-Ni II": > 30
type 1 APC "Ho-Ki": > 50
type 1 APC "Ho-Ha": > 50
armoured lumberjack "Ho-K": ca. 40
experimental superheavy tank "O-I", version 1: 2 chassis
experimental aa-tank "Ki-To": 1
experimental bridgelayer "T-G": 1
experimental aa-tank "Ta-Se": 1
experimental armoured trench excavator: 1
type 2 light tank "Ke-To": ca. 29
type 2 amphibious tank "Ka-Mi": ca. 184
type 3 medium tank "Chi-Nu": > 120
type 3 amphibious tank "Ka-Chi": ca. 20
type 3 SPG "Ho-Ni III": ca. 40
experimental/"Special No. 3" flying (glider)tank "So-Ra": wooden mockup
type 3 experimental light tank "Ke-Ri": 1 Ha-Go reworked in 1943
experimental 20 mm twin aa-tank: 1 prototype
type 4 light tank "Ke-Nu": some Ha-Go were reworked in 1944/45
type 4 SPG "Ho-Ro": ca. 25
type 4 experimental tank "Chi-To": 6 prototypes
type 4 SP 300 mm mortar "Ha-To": 4 prototypes
experimental superheavy tank "O-I", version 2: 1 chassis
type 5 experimental light tank "Ke-To": prototype production started
type 5 experimental tank "Chi-Ri": 1 prototype
type 5 75 mm tank hunter "Na-To": < 15
type 5 experimental 47 mm tank hunter "Ho-Ru": 1 prototype
experimental superheavy tank "O-I", version 3: probably 1 prototype
experimental 105 mm tank destroyer "Ho-Ri": early design studies


Yours

tom! ;)

SeattleGamer
12-23-2006, 12:10 AM
Thank you both very much! I was aware of Taki's website but have not yet done a thorough read (following all links and such).

I started with a basic list of well-known vehicles and have branched out from there slowly, trying to track down web photos of the various models, and production figures, along with actual year of introduction and that sort of thing. I wasn't thinking any production numbers I came across would be 100% accurate, but I'm hoping they are close.

My interest is dual, both for historical purposes, and for gaming. When it comes to gaming, I'd like to know that they produced 500 of model X but only 3 prototypes of Model Y. When people bandy about force listings I'd like to have a reasonable grasp of just how many of something might have been out there, how common or rare it might have been to encounter that particular vehicle. For example, I have no problems facing (or fielding) a full platoon of Type 5 Chi-Ri because it's "what-if" gaming. But knowing they only ever made 1 of them, and a prototype at that (it was never operational), is fun to know.

I will continue to pursue the numbers, and start digging into Taki's site. Again, thanks to you both.

Steve

GermanSoldier
01-26-2007, 10:27 PM
Tom! good information. Panzerknacker good pictures! Now I know what we are talking about.

alfiechan
05-27-2008, 05:02 AM
Hi everyone!
The name is Alfred and I live in Osaka. my main area of interest is WW2 Japan and yes, I read Japanese.
So here goes:
Akira's Japanese army homepage states that 166 vehicles were built. In recent Japanese publications such as Gakken's Pacific war series and the Panzer magazine's Japanese tank book numbers are betweern 150 and 211. Finemold's Mr Suzuki and Art box also say that there were at least 150 built. They found some production numbers at Mitsubishi and Hitachi's archives that mention the same numbers so in Japan it's pretty clear that more than 150 were built. There also exists an army order ordering 200 type 4 tanks between September 1945 and May 1946.
Hope this helps!

tom!
05-31-2008, 03:15 AM
Hi.

Another unknown detail, many thanks.

There are only few details avaliable about the japanese late-war afv development and production.

Do you have any informations regarding the status of the development of the Ka-To 105 mm tank destroyer, the superheavy tank O-I or the 105 mm gun tank Ho-Ri?


By the way, I have to add the following to my foreign armoured vehicle list above:
Fiat 3000 Model 21: 1

Yours

tom! ;)

christophe1992
07-17-2008, 01:15 PM
i dont know much about jap tanks only the ha-go and chi cha. they where underpowerd vs alied tanks like the sherman. is this tank beter then the hago en chicha?

tankgeezer
07-18-2008, 09:55 AM
I do not believe that this vehicle would make a serious contribution to the home defense effort, it was still too lightly armored to withstand the weapons it would encounter had the Allies decided on a ground invasion of Japan's home islands. Shermans would be there, but more likely they would be the minority,used as support tanks, as there would be time to muster the latest, largest, weapons to send against the home guard.( personally, I would have gathered all of the usable German armor possible, and sent it in as the spearhead.) From the photos of the assembly line, it appears that most any Allied tank could hole it with ease. The main gun of this tank is formidable to be sure, but the gun is just a part of the equation, (The German "Ferdinand" is a good example) This vehicle was too little, and too late.

genkideskan
07-18-2008, 01:37 PM
The japanese tank tactic never saw a tank to tank battle. The major force was the infantry - tanks had to support the infantry - not more. Therefore the japanese tanks where excellent. Air cooled diesel engines some machine guns and a support cannon 37mm and 57mm.
Exactly that was the role of these Type 3 tank - supporting the infantry - the 75mm gun is an artillery piece - not an anti tang gun.
The 47mm gun in the Shin Hoto was introduced as an high velocity AT gun.
With HE shells he was mainly used as infantry support tank - not in tank hunting role. The tank hunter never was in Japan - mostly only in some trials and experimental tanks. The high velocity guns of 75mm and 105 mm where borrowed by the navy and test firings and AP ammo must be developed for army use. The navy guns where made to be bolted on a ships deck - recoil was murderous. The guns must converted to low recoil to mount them on a vehicle. a lot of problems to solve.
Even the 75mm field piece used in the Type 3 has too much recoil and so the tracks and wheels where made stronger tracks are broader and the gun gets an muzzle brake.

tankgeezer
07-18-2008, 03:40 PM
Which is the problem, as this tank would be the target of Allied attention. In a land invasion of the home islands, tanks would be loosed in their hoards, primarily to attrit, and neutralize any armor, or artillery threat fielded by Japan.(that the air forces didnt get to first) As well as the usual job of taking out strong points,and swarming over them. My observation is that why go to the trouble of producing a larger tank, that is no better than their smaller tanks when compared to the modern, highly efficient weapons the Allies would muster to Reduce the islands.
Seems a waste of time. Yes, a nice field gun, I did notice that part, that would be something to deal with for infantry, but the U.S. and allies had learned about tank to tank fighting, and this tank would not survive an encounter.

tom!
07-18-2008, 03:41 PM
Hi.

Some corrections:

The high-velocity type 5 75 mm tank gun was a side developed from the type 4 aa-gun, more or less an improved version of the prewar 75 mm M29 Bofors gun which was captured in NEI.

The high-velocity type 5 105 mm tank gun was developed from a late-30th experimental 105 mm long-range artillery gun which was based on the type 92 105 mm artillery cannon.

In general the army rated the naval guns as too heavy and too immobile to be useful even for defence. Conversion would have been too expensive and so from all avaliable naval guns only the type 93 13,2 mm machine cannon was used by the army officially (ok, some obsolete battleship guns were used in coastal fortresses after 1923 but that doesn´t really count).

Yours

tom! ;)

alfiechan
09-17-2008, 12:37 PM
Well, what can I say? The type 3 had a good gun and 50mm of armour. Check out the US Intelligence report from July 1945 to see what Japanese tanks could do. Go to http://www.ionesentry.com/articles/jp_type97_tank/index.html
The type 3 would not have been as easy to knock out as you say. And how would the Americans have sent German tanks to Japan? I am sick and tired of people giving shit to the Japanese!

flamethrowerguy
09-17-2008, 04:33 PM
I kinda miss some japanese input on the site! Maybe not this emotional but it still would be very interesting!

alfiechan
09-18-2008, 06:35 AM
Hello there,
What kind of input would you like? I have tons and tons of material on the Japanese Forces so what could I help you with? The thing with the type 3 is that by US recognition it would have been quite an adversary for the Sherman because the Americans did some tests with it after the war. And, according to a Japanese tank crewman who was on Luzon in a Chi=ha with additional armour ( field improvement, 5omm armour) Sherman 75mm shells bounced off a few times before the tank was finally overwhelmed. This is all wrtitten in Japanese publications and usually not read by non-Japanese. So again, what kind of info would you like?

Cheers and greetings from Japan,

Alfiechan

flamethrowerguy
09-18-2008, 07:27 AM
Hello there,
What kind of input would you like? I have tons and tons of material on the Japanese Forces so what could I help you with? The thing with the type 3 is that by US recognition it would have been quite an adversary for the Sherman because the Americans did some tests with it after the war. And, according to a Japanese tank crewman who was on Luzon in a Chi=ha with additional armour ( field improvement, 5omm armour) Sherman 75mm shells bounced off a few times before the tank was finally overwhelmed. This is all wrtitten in Japanese publications and usually not read by non-Japanese. So again, what kind of info would you like?

Cheers and greetings from Japan,

Alfiechan

Hi Alfiechan, there's no specific issue right now, just generally spoken I would be interested to hear the point of view of modern japanese people regarding the different PTO topics. I am surely no expert on this, so I just sit back, read and try to learn.

alfiechan
09-22-2008, 09:41 AM
Dear Tom,
Here is some info on the 105mm tank destroyers Ho-Ri1 and Ka-To:
The Japanese Army decided in Aug.1943 to build a new 105mm anti-tank gun. design on the Ho-Ri1 started in Aug1943 and on the Ka-To in Jan 1944. The 105mm anti-tank gun had muzzle velocity of 900m/sec and was supposed to penetrate 200mm of armor at 1000m.
The Ho-Ri 1 had a crew of 6, weighrd 40 tons and carried 60 shells fro its 105mm gun, 100 for the 37mm gun, 480 for the 20mm twin-anti-aircraft gun and 4980 for the 7,7mm machine-gun. It had a water-cooled 550hp BMW engine. The Ka-To also had a crew of 6 and had a 400hp air-cooled engine. It carried 45 105mm shells. Design work was finished in March 1945 but by then it was too late to build even a prototype as the tank factories were busy building the Type 3 medium tank, the type 3 tank destroyer and the type 4 meduim tank. However, 2 prototypes of the 75mm tank destroyer Na-To were built.
Hope this helps!

tankgeezer
09-22-2008, 11:15 AM
Well, what can I say? The type 3 had a good gun and 50mm of armour. Check out the US Intelligence report from July 1945 to see what Japanese tanks could do. Go to http://www.ionesentry.com/articles/jp_type97_tank/index.html
The type 3 would not have been as easy to knock out as you say. And how would the Americans have sent German tanks to Japan? I am sick and tired of people giving shit to the Japanese!
These comments are intended to show the fact that the type 3 was not up to what it would be facing in the event of a land assault on the home islands. There would be as few Shermans as possible in the spearhead attacks, and huge numbers of M-26 w/ the 90 mm gun,not to mention loads of tank destroyers, and that doesnt even cover the Allied nations armor .Hoards of Fireflys,(which while being basically a Sherman, was armed with a gun most capable of dealing out the type 3) and whatever else they had to bring along. and being an inventive people, with time to plan, and muster the equipment that was wanted for this operation, the gathering, and outfitting captured/surrendered German, and even "borrowed" Russian Armor is certainly possible.They would be loaded on ships, and brought in whatever numbers could be obtained, and supplied.
By your own admission, the Japanese Gov't did not think in terms of tank to tank warfare. The allies however, prepared for it very thoroughly, and based their attacks on it.
And this all may be a moot point, as the giant airforces of the allies would have been stalking anything worth destroying for sometime before the land forces came ashore.
In its envisioned role, against only the forces expected to meet it, the type 3 might have done well,but the fact is, that it would have found itself terribly outclassed, and overwhelmed by newer technology,(which it was) and battle plans designed to negate any advantage it may have possessed by Japanese standards. (do you really think we will bring a knife to a gunfight??)The Allied planners knew their business, and would utilize anything available to make sure there was no possibility of any real threat.
This is much like the first Gulf war, where everyone was so worried about the Iraqi million man army, and their large armor forces. the sad truth was, their entire military was comprised of equipment that had no real chance of being effective in the field. (in truth, they never had any sort of chance at all, which is sad really.) Once this was realized by the troops, they fled en mass. Much the same thing would have occurred in an invasion of the home islands. As for the Japanese people taking crap about it, well,this thread isnt about that, just about the particulars of the type 3, but if you really want to go there, fine. the Japanese gov't, and people of that time kind of asked for it. If one's stature among the worlds Nations is important, then its best not to begin a war, much less by murdering large numbers of people. in Hawaii, and China.
No one blames the present generations of Japanese people for the atrocities of those who were in power then,We may forgive murder, and perhaps even forget the murder, but we always remember those who died.

alfiechan
09-23-2008, 03:29 AM
Well, the thing is that the Japanese DID think of tank vs tank warfare. That's why they developed new anti-tank guns in 1944 and 1945.
You say that the US forces would have consisted of mostly M-26. Please check the US archives and read books about the planned invasion on Japan. The US tank forces prepared in order to invade Japan included 2 battalions of M-26 tanks, the rest were Sherman tanks. Check out the book "Downfall" and the US army archives if you do not believe me. You also say that the US tanks would have swarmed over the beaches. True. That is the only place they could have swarmed over, anyway. I have been to Kyushu to check out the landing areas and I can tell you that Kyushu favors the defender. Hills, mountains, swamps etc would make a tank advance very, very slow. It is lousy tank country
The US forces also knew this and realized that the M-26 was not manouverable enough for the area. They would have bogged down.
I know that in the end the Allies would have won but it would not have been as easy as you think. And there were NO plans at all to use captured German tanks or borrowed Russian ones. Please check archives before you make statements like that.

tankgeezer
09-23-2008, 11:34 AM
Gee, I must be daft,,,how could i have not seen,,, you bet, if we had invaded Japan, and came up against a couple hundred type 3's we would have fled in stark terror, as if godzilla was right behind us. ALL IS LOST!! Flee,, its a type 3!!! (not really) That little green box is nothing to pin one's hopes on, With the allied air superiority, (a well developed close ground support doctrine), and way more aircraft than needed to do the job, Japanese forces, including little old ladies with sticks, would be wondering why they cant get anything anywhere in one piece. And saying for the moment that your archive info is valid, (disinformation being the norm) the Shermans you spoke of would be hunting in packs as they did in Europe, (another well developed doctrine)They would have been landed in number, on the same technology they were landed on in Europe, and your inhospitable coastline would have been prepared for the mission by those who did the same things in Europe.(even more well developed doctrine.)
The sad part is, that none of it had to happen. The truly sad part is that the Imperial gov't forced the issue to its unfortunate outcome.

alfiechan
09-26-2008, 10:06 AM
Flee, it's a type 3? great stuff! Can you do more, maybe with the type 4 and the type 5? maybe like type 4, at America's door or type 5, it's alive? It is fun to be among such accomplished poets! But what really got me was the old lady with the stick. You know, during my research at the archives in Tokyo I found out that they tried to mass-produce those but they all suffocated after camo paint was applied.Another good idea gone to hell!
Well, anyway, I agree with you that the US would have won. Still, kyushu is mostly hills and valleys and there is nothing like the open hedge country as in France. the invasion of Honshu would have seen more tank to tank battles as there are plains around Tokyo and of course the US would have won in the end. All I am saying is that it would not have been as easy as you say. The Japanese also developed a Bazooka-like rocket launcher able to penetrate 85-90mm at 100m and they had thousands of these. Also remember that the US lost 221 tanks on Okinawa alone. Anyway, I for one am glad that it did not come to an invasion. Japanese people would have died by the millions and for what?
So please reply and do some more poetry!
Greetings from Osaka,
alfiechan

tom!
09-26-2008, 01:07 PM
Hi.


Dear Tom,
Here is some info on the 105mm tank destroyers Ho-Ri1 and Ka-To:
The Japanese Army decided in Aug.1943 to build a new 105mm anti-tank gun. design on the Ho-Ri1 started in Aug1943 and on the Ka-To in Jan 1944. The 105mm anti-tank gun had muzzle velocity of 900m/sec and was supposed to penetrate 200mm of armor at 1000m.
The Ho-Ri 1 had a crew of 6, weighrd 40 tons and carried 60 shells fro its 105mm gun, 100 for the 37mm gun, 480 for the 20mm twin-anti-aircraft gun and 4980 for the 7,7mm machine-gun. It had a water-cooled 550hp BMW engine. The Ka-To also had a crew of 6 and had a 400hp air-cooled engine. It carried 45 105mm shells. Design work was finished in March 1945 but by then it was too late to build even a prototype as the tank factories were busy building the Type 3 medium tank, the type 3 tank destroyer and the type 4 meduim tank. However, 2 prototypes of the 75mm tank destroyer Na-To were built.
Hope this helps!

Thanks for the additional infos.

There is a nice photo series of a presentation of the Na-To in the Tank Magazine Special Issue April 1992 "Japanese Tanks till 1945" (caption on the rear).

Some relating and detail questions:

1. I read a number of sources (english and japanese websites) mentioning that at least 6 Na-To were built (with a variety of 6 to 20 vehicles) and also tested under operational conditions in China in summer 1945. Myth or reality?

2. Are there any informations avaliable on the development of the carriers used for the Na-To and Ha-To? There is a large analogy with the type 4 medium tank at least regarding the suspension. During an email discussion Taki (http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/) mentioned that there was a development program for a heavy (weapons) carrier which lead to this carriages.

3. Are there any informations avaliable why IJA developed a 105 mm tank gun without also developing a vehicle for this weapon?

4. Are there more detailed informations avaliable about the problems with the first trial version of the type 5 75 mm tank gun? I only read that "there were problems with the recoil mechanism". The pictures of these version of the gun also shows a different recoil mechanism.

Many thanks in advance.

Yours

tom! ;)

alfiechan
09-29-2008, 10:22 AM
I need to translate the info available in Japanese, there is so much of it. Please allow me some time!
Cheers!

Byron
10-07-2012, 01:44 PM
the Shermans you spoke of would be hunting in packs as they did in Europe, (another well developed doctrine)They would have been landed in number, on the same technology they were landed on in Europe, and your inhospitable coastline would have been prepared for the mission by those who did the same things in Europe.(even more well developed doctrine.)

I dont' think the "Shermans would have been hunting in packs as they did in Europe" actually. The reasons are twofold. The Marines used tanks to support their attacks but, against the defensive tactics of the Japanese, they had developed a doctrine of using the tanks purely as infantry support vehicles. Basically, the tanks never advanced without strong infantry support; strong combined arms teams was the preferred attack method.

The second part of it is the Japanese use of armor. They also used AFV as a support tool for the infantry and, in this role, the Type 3 could have been quite formidable. They would not have been massing into large tank groups and assaulting over open plains as seems to be implied. The tank would more likely be used to fire from covered defensive positions and as a mobile gun platform for any possible counterattacks.

The wild card that would undue this type of defense is Allied air power, which would own the battlefield during any major confrontations.

leccy
10-07-2012, 05:00 PM
A little bit of contemporary information from US publications

Japanese Tanks and Tank Tactics 1944

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/wwIIspec/number26.pdf

Japanese Tank and Anti-tank Warfare 1945

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/wwIIspec/number34.pdf

flamethrowerguy
10-08-2012, 02:28 AM
Thread moved back to 'Japanese military'.

Nickdfresh
10-08-2012, 12:18 PM
I dont' think the "Shermans would have been hunting in packs as they did in Europe" actually. The reasons are twofold. The Marines used tanks to support their attacks but, against the defensive tactics of the Japanese, they had developed a doctrine of using the tanks purely as infantry support vehicles. Basically, the tanks never advanced without strong infantry support; strong combined arms teams was the preferred attack method.

The second part of it is the Japanese use of armor. They also used AFV as a support tool for the infantry and, in this role, the Type 3 could have been quite formidable. They would not have been massing into large tank groups and assaulting over open plains as seems to be implied. The tank would more likely be used to fire from covered defensive positions and as a mobile gun platform for any possible counterattacks.

The wild card that would undue this type of defense is Allied air power, which would own the battlefield during any major confrontations.

I agree with you comments regarding the Japanese Imperial Army's use of armor for most of the "island hopping campaign" during the Pacific Theater of War. However, there were instances (though very few) of all out tank-versus-tank combat in the Philippines and elsewhere. But it was rare that the terrain favored large scale maneuver of AFV's in mobile battles. The IJA Malaysian Campaign culminating in the fall of Singapore also saw extensive use of Japanese armor, although they had no British tanks to fight, the tanks were still used in mass formations against Commonwealth troops, and almost certainly there would have been tank battles had the British command found the wisdom of using tanks in the jungle.

More specifically regarding Operation Downfall, it is often stated that the U.S. Army, and possibly the Marines, were looking forward to putting large numbers of tanks on the Tokyo Plane where the terrain very much favored a decisive battle of maneuver. In anticipation of this, the Army began staging even M26 Pershings on Okinawa (later sent to Korea IIRC), which would have been virtually invulnerable to most known and widely issued Japanese antitank weapons at the time and certainly to the guns on the majority of Japanese tanks. Though the Japanese Army was working on a newer generation of tanks to match the Shermans, and even the Pershing, whether they had the industry left to get anywhere the numbers needed is questionable. I do think there would have been tank battles in Japan with the IJA throwing the last of their armor reserve against massed armor had the war gone on into 1946...

Nickdfresh
10-08-2012, 12:30 PM
A little bit of contemporary information from US publications

Japanese Tanks and Tank Tactics 1944

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/wwIIspec/number26.pdf

Japanese Tank and Anti-tank Warfare 1945

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/wwIIspec/number34.pdf


Excellent links, thanks! :)

leccy
10-08-2012, 03:32 PM
I do not know how accurate these figures are but they may shed some light on Japanese tank numbers in various zones.

THE HISTORY OF BATTLES OF IMPERIAL JAPANESE TANKS PART I

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/history.htm

THE HISTORY OF BATTLES OF IMPERIAL JAPANESE TANKS PART 2

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/history2.htm

Byron
10-09-2012, 04:47 PM
I agree with you comments regarding the Japanese Imperial Army's use of armor for most of the "island hopping campaign" during the Pacific Theater of War. However, there were instances (though very few) of all out tank-versus-tank combat in the Philippines and elsewhere. But it was rare that the terrain favored large scale maneuver of AFV's in mobile battles. The IJA Malaysian Campaign culminating in the fall of Singapore also saw extensive use of Japanese armor, although they had no British tanks to fight, the tanks were still used in mass formations against Commonwealth troops, and almost certainly there would have been tank battles had the British command found the wisdom of using tanks in the jungle.

More specifically regarding Operation Downfall, it is often stated that the U.S. Army, and possibly the Marines, were looking forward to putting large numbers of tanks on the Tokyo Plane where the terrain very much favored a decisive battle of maneuver. In anticipation of this, the Army began staging even M26 Pershings on Okinawa (later sent to Korea IIRC), which would have been virtually invulnerable to most known and widely issued Japanese antitank weapons at the time and certainly to the guns on the majority of Japanese tanks. Though the Japanese Army was working on a newer generation of tanks to match the Shermans, and even the Pershing, whether they had the industry left to get anywhere the numbers needed is questionable. I do think there would have been tank battles in Japan with the IJA throwing the last of their armor reserve against massed armor had the war gone on into 1946...

I'm not saying there wouldn't have been tank vs tank confrontations but I believe that large numbers would have been few and far between. There would have been more smaller confrontations than grand tank battles in spite of the presence of good tank terrain in parts of the island. Especially in light of allied air dominance, the Japanese would have probably tried to keep their armor under cover to maximise it's use. I'm sure the Allied planners would have loved to see a major tank battle on the Tokyo Plain but I'm not certain the Japanese would play into that strategy. Just my thoughts.

leccy
10-09-2012, 05:33 PM
Quite a few of the Japanese armoured units actually counter attacked beaches on D-Day or very soon after in an attempt to stop the landing (much like Rommel wished to do in Normandy).

A landing on the Home Islands would probably receive as warm a welcome as soon as a unit could be mustered.

The longer they allowed a build up the less chance they would have to repulse a landing with Allied superiority in most areas.

fredl109
11-14-2012, 08:32 AM
Hello to all, if you allow me it to bring my modest contribution to this post, me you will say gentlemen that you forget an essential factor. It is that Japan didn't have the means anymore to produce in mass any vehicle, that he is tank or other, besides they were absolutely has short of fuel. Then the fights foreseen against chariots on the territory of Japan are only speculation. Other non negligible factor, it is that the Japanese people burst of hunger, the production of rice was reduced has nothing and before the bombardment of Hiroshima, it already made nearly one year that there was not sufficient production of rice anymore. Besides, the blockade imposed by the American marine had for effect that more nothing nor left went back to Japan, therefore the repatriation of some remaining chariot units in some islands was impossible to them, of mêm the production of steel had fallen to zero, what made absolutely impossible all creation of new projects. And to finish when you look at the type of tank that the Japanese army possessed, you perceive very quickly that it would not have made the weight so much facing the American chariots very same there would have been some fights between tank, thing that I think highly unlikely seen the dilapidation of the Japanese army some 1945.
Best Regard Fred

JR*
11-14-2012, 11:52 AM
Very interesting thread. The Type 3 does look like an interesting tank. Type 3 versus Sherman engagements would have been interesting. However, reading through the thread only emphasises for me the hopelessness of the Japanese war effort, at least in terms of pure materiele. This looks like yet another demonstration of the fact that Japan could only have defeated the US if the latter failed in morale or willpower. Japan made a fundamental miscalculation on this point at the outset of the war, coloured by its own ideological imperatives and a misapprehension of US national ideology, aside altogether from its economic capacity. Best regards, JR.

Nickdfresh
07-19-2013, 02:22 PM
Bumping!

J.A.W.
07-20-2013, 10:34 PM
What could the Japanese armour do opposing a beach landing.. except provide convenient targets for Naval fire..

Nickdfresh
07-20-2013, 11:36 PM
What could the German Tiger tanks do opposing a beach landing.. except provide convenient targets for Naval fire..

Fixed... :evil: :mrgreen:

J.A.W.
07-21-2013, 11:25 PM
Well, I guess if it came to duking it out with a cheeky DD Skipper who poked his nose in too close, an 88mm
could do a bit of damage.. but against Big-As BBs, absolutely..no chance..