PDA

View Full Version : japanese tanks dont work



danger13
09-17-2005, 12:17 PM
could 5 shermans REALLY destroy a division of japanese tanks, and could a field gun not fire a shell and hit a target fron 2 miles?

just wondered why the allied ground units are seriously kicking butt in all of the campains i build even the ones i make with persuasion towards axis ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

danger13
09-17-2005, 12:17 PM
could 5 shermans REALLY destroy a division of japanese tanks, and could a field gun not fire a shell and hit a target fron 2 miles?

just wondered why the allied ground units are seriously kicking butt in all of the campains i build even the ones i make with persuasion towards axis ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Nubarus
09-17-2005, 12:36 PM
Maybe you should read up on the Japanese tanks bit, they where the worsed of em all.

Flimsy armor and under gunned.

They where doing the job at first when they rolled over the pacific islands but once they actually met some real tanks they where pretty much useless.

3.JG51_BigBear
09-17-2005, 01:28 PM
Nubarus is right, Japanese tanks were these small ridiculous looking things for the most part. The most produced Japanese tank was the Type 94 'Tankette.' It was only 8 tons as opposed to the Sherman's 34 and despite its smaller size the Type 94 wasn't a heck of a lot faster than the Sherman. The Sherman also had the 75MM gun while the Type 94 had a 37MM and while the armour on the Sherman was 75mm thick in some spots the thickest armour on the Type 94 was 12MM.

Chuck_Older
09-17-2005, 05:45 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif For reference, one inch equals 12.7mm

Although, in the jungle, a 34 ton tank might get stuck where an 8 ton tank might not...and a small 8 ton tank could physically fit in spaces a larger 34 ton tank couldn't. In this sim, soft ground isn't modelled and armored mobility is practically nil. But hey, it's a flight sim

jeroen-79
09-17-2005, 06:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif For reference, one inch equals 12.7mm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>25.4mm actually.
12.7mm is .50, 1/2 an inch.

Gibbage1
09-17-2005, 11:00 PM
An M2 CAN penetrate 12MM of armor.

There was a saying. How do you disable a Japanes tank? Bayonet!

Chuck_Older
09-18-2005, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jeroen-79:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif For reference, one inch equals 12.7mm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>25.4mm actually.
12.7mm is .50, 1/2 an inch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're absolutely right of course. Poor proofreading http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Dtools4fools
09-18-2005, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Although, in the jungle, a 34 ton tank might get stuck where an 8 ton tank might not </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That depends on the ground pressure; I doubt that Japanese tanks with their rather narrow tracks will be good in this category. Neither did the Sherman, especially the eraly ones, btw.

The bayonet story goes back to an infantry soldier blocking the turret of a Japanese tankette IIRC.
*****

Willey
09-18-2005, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
An M2 CAN penetrate 12MM of armor.

There was a saying. How do you disable a Japanes tank? Bayonet! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even a MG 17 can http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, but just in optimal conditions (90?, less than 100m distance).

Bearcat99
09-18-2005, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danger13:
could 5 shermans REALLY destroy a division of japanese tanks, and could a field gun not fire a shell and hit a target fron 2 miles?

just wondered why the allied ground units are seriously kicking butt in all of the campains i build even the ones i make with persuasion towards axis ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No offense intended but this is a classic example of someone questioning something about the sim based on peceptions rather than facts. That happens a lot around here.... again no offense intended.... everybody makes mistakes.. I have done that myself....

SeaFireLIV
09-18-2005, 02:23 PM
Games like Battlefield 1942 don`t help. A little Japanese tank in that can go 1 on 1 with a Sherman! I suspect the original owner`s been playing games like that rather than reading the reality of it in history books!

stevedeth2004
09-21-2005, 03:14 PM
A few minutes on Saipan illustrates the point. A full Battalion of tanks (HA-GOs) attacked a company of M4A2 (Diesl powered Shermans that Marines used). 20 or so minutes later 45 burning Japanese tanks, one Sherman with a jammed gun. At that range the issue was that the 75mm AP round would go clean through both ends of the HA-GO. The Marines learned that HE rounds worked best. The 75mm Sherman and 37MM Stuarts so outclassed the limeted amount of Japanese Armor. They were effective till the end of the war. While in Europe the 75mm was on the receiving end. Only numbers and the small numbers of 76mm and 17LBRs helped.
The only thing worse than an Italian tank is a Japanese tank!

faustnik
09-21-2005, 03:29 PM
The Type 97 Shinhoto Chi-Ha medium carried a 47mm gun that was a threat to an M4. It's heaviest armor was about 1" thick however, so its survivability was very low.

Basically, a plain old M4 in the Pacific was equivalent of a Tiger in the ETO. The Japanese just had very few weapons capable of dealing with them. The 47mm Type 1 AT could penetrate the M4 from the side or rear and did cause a number of M4 losses. Mines and rigged aircraft bombs caused a large percentage of M4 losses. Other than those weapons, it was pretty much only suicide bombing with hand held AT mines.

If the Japanese had simply copied the panzerfaust, the Marine and Army tanks crews would have been in serious trouble.

p1ngu666
09-21-2005, 04:18 PM
think they where ment tobe mobile pill boxes, and the smallness in the jungle would help

faustnik
09-21-2005, 04:49 PM
Well, the main use of tanks by the Japanese was in China and Manchuria. The wanted to have a modern tank force capable of modern maneuvers. The Tpye 97 was a capable tank for the late 1930s with good mobility.

Nimits
09-23-2005, 05:17 PM
Shoot, in the PTO, even the Stuart (which was so under-gunned in the ETO alot people wanted to withdraw it from combat alltogheter) dominated the battlefield against Japanese tank and anti-tank forces. Let's face it, while their infantry matched up well enough against the Allies, especially in the first half of the war, the supporting arms of the Japanese army (Armor, artillery, logistics, medical, observation aviation, etc.) were just about the worst of any major combatant.