Author Topic: N1K2-J and the type 99MK 2 NOT AN AT weapon (Read 960 times)

brady · « **on:** August 04, 2001, 07:03:00 PM »

I do not have the exact figures with me(since I am out of town) but the Type 99 should not do what it does to tanks, this low velocity weapon that fired almost all HEI rounds(only the tracers were ap) should not be as effective aganst ground vehicals as it is. This is not the only odity with the curent tank modeling.

Citabria · « **Reply #1 on:** August 04, 2001, 11:54:00 PM »

30mm splodes dweebhicles nicely now too

Tony Williams · « **Reply #2 on:** August 05, 2001, 03:34:00 AM »

Both versions of 20mm Type 99 were available with a 131g API containing 3.4g incendiary material in the base. The Type 99-1 fired these at around 600 m/sec, the Type 99-2 at 750 m/sec.

At short range, and striking at the most favourable angle, the 99-1 could penetrate around 20mm, the 99-2 probably 25+mm, although in the normal conditions of ground attack (i.e. at longer ranges, and striking the armour at a glancing angle) those figures would be reduced significantly.

Most AFVs in the Far East were smaller/older/less well protected than those in the European sector. On test, the 20mm Hispano SAPI (130g at 880 m/s) could get through Japanese armour without too much trouble. So the Type 99-2 at least could be a danger to many of the tanks in theatre.

Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/

brady · « **Reply #3 on:** August 05, 2001, 09:44:00 AM »

TY Tony

SpitLead · « **Reply #4 on:** August 10, 2001, 05:59:00 PM »

I was gonna say what Tony said but he beat me to it

Animal · « **Reply #5 on:** August 11, 2001, 03:11:00 AM »

Tony, are you a supercomputer?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #6 on:** August 11, 2001, 03:24:00 AM »

The only AFVs in the Pacific to have less armor than European tanks were the poor Japanese light/medium (not medium as in western sense, basically still light tanks) tanks only sufficiently armored against rifle and MG fire.

The British and Americans and Australians used standard AFVs like Shermans and Matilda IIs. Which had armour imperivous to 20mm aircrft cannon on all surfaces.

Tony Williams · « **Reply #7 on:** August 12, 2001, 02:01:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Animal:
Tony, are you a supercomputer?

Hell, no, my brain cells are dying off fast under the combined assault of age and alcohol. I just have a sad obsessional interest in establishing the facts when it comes to weapons and their performance

Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/

Tony Williams · « **Reply #8 on:** August 12, 2001, 02:03:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
The only AFVs in the Pacific to have less armor than European tanks were the poor Japanese light/medium (not medium as in western sense, basically still light tanks) tanks only sufficiently armored against rifle and MG fire.

The British and Americans and Australians used standard AFVs like Shermans and Matilda IIs. Which had armour imperivous to 20mm aircrft cannon on all surfaces.

A fair point. I thought that quite a few light tanks (US M5?) were used as well, as being better suited to the conditions (and the opposition...)

Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #9 on:** August 12, 2001, 03:29:00 AM »

Stuarts had more armor than the Japanese tanks too.