Jap tank

[Skyguns MKII]

I really do think we need one, no Japanese armor what so ever. Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank with 47mm high velocity gun. get sick of subbing with m8

[Rich52]

I really do think we need one, no Japanese armor what so ever. Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank with 47mm high velocity gun. get sick of subbing with m8

The lousy Japanese armor really was an almost non-player in the war. Yes I know they were used in a few attacks, maybe one or two were successful, but mostly they got clobbered "the few tanks they actually built and deployed". The IJN got almost all the quality steel output Jap industry could produce meaning their tanks got lousy steel for construction and not much of it either. The type 97 had armor of from 8-25mm protecting it and the plate was crapola to begin with.

Most of their tank successes were with infantry support tanks againsy unarmored opponants. In 1939 they got into a dustup in Manchuria against the Soviets and their tanks got their butts wipped. Against the Americans they mostly dug their tanks into dirt to get a few shots off before naval guns, or 18yos with bazookas, clobbered them. Even 0.50s could penetrate parts of them. They simply were not very good, and further hampered by terrible tanks tactics. Better tanks that would fill the same gap would be, such as, a Yank Stuart or a Czechoslovakian made T-38. Both had excelent 37mm guns but were well made and fast. The Stu was the best scout tank of the war.

[talos]

 


I WANT TINDERBOXES,  YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 


+1

[iron650]

+1 for Type 97, M3 Stuart, and T-38

[Butcher]

I really do think we need one, no Japanese armor what so ever. Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank with 47mm high velocity gun. get sick of subbing with m8

It would be interesting, killing a Panzer4 would be an adventure with one of the japanese tanks

Here's what would happen if we did add japanese tanks though ->

[Bino]

...
Most of their tank successes were with infantry support tanks againsy unarmored opponants. In 1939 they got into a dustup in Manchuria against the Soviets and their tanks got their butts wipped...

I remember an old SPI board game of Khalkhin-Gol.  It was pretty much a slaughter, and the best Soviet tank present at Khalkhin-Gol was the lousy BT-7!

[M0nkey_Man]

+1 for targets

[Skyguns MKII]

The lousy Japanese armor really was an almost non-player in the war. Yes I know they were used in a few attacks, maybe one or two were successful, but mostly they got clobbered "the few tanks they actually built and deployed". The IJN got almost all the quality steel output Jap industry could produce meaning their tanks got lousy steel for construction and not much of it either. The type 97 had armor of from 8-25mm protecting it and the plate was crapola to begin with.

Most of their tank successes were with infantry support tanks againsy unarmored opponants. In 1939 they got into a dustup in Manchuria against the Soviets and their tanks got their butts wipped. Against the Americans they mostly dug their tanks into dirt to get a few shots off before naval guns, or 18yos with bazookas, clobbered them. Even 0.50s could penetrate parts of them. They simply were not very good, and further hampered by terrible tanks tactics. Better tanks that would fill the same gap would be, such as, a Yank Stuart or a Czechoslovakian made T-38. Both had excelent 37mm guns but were well made and fast. The Stu was the best scout tank of the war.

i understand, however its still needed as a placetaker

[Rich52]

i understand, however its still needed as a placetaker

Normally I'd agree. And while I respect your "wish" the fact is their tanks were not only bad, they were few, and were used poorly. The PTO was not a real tank theater, most of all for the IJA.

[HighTone]

It would be nice to have a Japanese "Tank" as a choice, but I GV so little that it wouldn't be in front of the Japanese planes I would like to see first. 


+1 -1 

[Ack-Ack]

The PTO was not a real tank theater, most of all for the IJA.

In every major battle to recapture islands in the Pacific (i.e. Guadacanal, Tarawa, Saipan, etc.) there was at least one tank battle, sometimes even more.

Normally I'd agree. And while I respect your "wish" the fact is their tanks were not only bad, they were few, and were used poorly.

The Japanese tanks weren't bad at all, the problem was that Japanese tank designs were a victim of the Japanese High Command's myopic strategic thinking.  Japan never expected to have a total general war with the United States, it only expected hostilities to last 6 months, a year at the least and to be made up of sharp, defining engagements.  Japan's whole war and logistical strategy was based on this, which is why Japan never fielded or designed any medium or large tanks that were comparable to the western countries, it never expected hostilities to get to the point where those tanks were needed. 

For the early war tank set, it would be nice to have a Japanese tank.

ack-ack

[Skyguns MKII]

In every major battle to recapture islands in the Pacific (i.e. Guadacanal, Tarawa, Saipan, etc.) there was at least one tank battle, sometimes even more.

The Japanese tanks weren't bad at all, the problem was that Japanese tank designs were a victim of the Japanese High Command's myopic strategic thinking.  Japan never expected to have a total general war with the United States, it only expected hostilities to last 6 months, a year at the least and to be made up of sharp, defining engagements.  Japan's whole war and logistical strategy was based on this, which is why Japan never fielded or designed any medium or large tanks that were comparable to the western countries, it never expected hostilities to get to the point where those tanks were needed. 

For the early war tank set, it would be nice to have a Japanese tank.

ack-ack

My post continued

[Rich52]

As usual no historical data to back up his opinion. Heres a quick read on the glorious tank operations of the Japanese 
http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/history.htm Do scroll to the bottom to read the accounts of the glory reaped by Jap tankers against the Yanks and Brits.
Visions of a Pacific Kursk comes to mind. 

In every major battle to recapture islands in the Pacific (i.e. Guadacanal, Tarawa, Saipan, etc.) there was at least one tank battle, sometimes even more.

The Japanese tanks weren't bad at all, the problem was that Japanese tank designs were a victim of the Japanese High Command's myopic strategic thinking.  Japan never expected to have a total general war with the United States, it only expected hostilities to last 6 months, a year at the least and to be made up of sharp, defining engagements.  Japan's whole war and logistical strategy was based on this, which is why Japan never fielded or designed any medium or large tanks that were comparable to the western countries, it never expected hostilities to get to the point where those tanks were needed. 

For the early war tank set, it would be nice to have a Japanese tank.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

As usual no historical data to back up his opinion. Heres a quick read on the glorious tank operations of the Japanese 
http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/history.htm Do scroll to the bottom to read the accounts of the glory reaped by Jap tankers against the Yanks and Brits.
Visions of a Pacific Kursk comes to mind. 

I actually have a lot of sources to back up my opinion and nothing that link you provided contradicts anything I posted previously.  Please show me where there wasn't at least one tank engagement in any of the major island campaign or at disprove anything else I posted.  You can't and there is a reason for that...

You can't disprove anything that I posted so you try and change the argument and argue a point that was never made.  No one denied or tried to claim that the Japanese tanks were a match for Allied armor, that was only in your little mind.  I would suggest try reading some books on the Pacific campaigns but I'm not sure if you know how.

For anyone else interested in the Pacific campaigns, I suggest starting off with "Strong Men Armed - The United States Marines Against Japan".  It's the battle history of the USMC in the Pacific and covers all of their campaigns and is an excellent resource and read.  It's written by historian/journalist/author/WW2 Marine, Robert Leckie (A helmet for my pillow).  Below are some further books that are excellent starter material.

A couple of other books on the Pacific.
"Goodbye, Darkness - A memoir of the Pacific War" by William Manchester

"Brotherhood of Heroes - The Marines at Peleliu, 1944" by Bill Sloan

"The Ghost Mountain Boys" (history of the 32nd Division during the Battle for New Guinea) by James Cambell

"One Square Mile of Hell: The Battle for Tarawa" by John Wukovits

And for those interested in tank combat in the Pacific...
"Cutthroats: The Adventures of a Sherman Tank Driver in the Pacific" by Robert Dick.

ack-ack

[gyrene81]

As usual no historical data to back up his opinion. Heres a quick read on the glorious tank operations of the Japanese 
http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/history.htm Do scroll to the bottom to read the accounts of the glory reaped by Jap tankers against the Yanks and Brits.
Visions of a Pacific Kursk comes to mind. 

interesting series of "opinions" but off the mark a bit. japan started out using their armor much the same way germany used it in the early war, mobile infantry support. before they declared war on the u.s. they had the upper hand in armored combat. the khalkhin-gol incident was a russian victory by sheer numbers (400+ soviet tanks plus artillery and air support) and very bad japanese command decisions/doctrine.

nice attempt to try an spin it as "piss poor japanese manufacturing".

i don't normally side with ack-ack but, in this case...you should read more books.