Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Skyguns MKII on August 11, 2011, 02:13:34 AM
-
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
-
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.
-
:O :O :O :O :O
I WANT TINDERBOXES, YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:O :O :O :O :O :O
+1 :aok
-
+1 for Type 97, M3 Stuart, and T-38
-
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 ->
(http://ww2db.com/images/vehicle_type94teke4.jpg)
-
...
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!
-
+1 for targets
-
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
-
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.
-
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 :aok
-
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
-
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
-
As usual no historical data to back up his opinion. Heres a quick read on the glorious tank operations of the Japanese :lol
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. :ahand
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
-
As usual no historical data to back up his opinion. Heres a quick read on the glorious tank operations of the Japanese :lol
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. :ahand
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
-
As usual no historical data to back up his opinion. Heres a quick read on the glorious tank operations of the Japanese :lol
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. :ahand
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.
-
As usual no historical data to back up his opinion. Heres a quick read on the glorious tank operations of the Japanese :lol
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. :ahand
ack-ack just :ahand
-
ack-ack just :ahand
No, actually you just FAIL :aok
:cheers: Oz
-
Your first two few opinions contradict themselves. The fact is the IJA NEVER used armor the same way Germany did early in the war. Not EVER. At the
khalkhin-gol incident it was true they were outnumbered in tanks but they still had at least 135 and used them the way they did the entire war. Poorly made tanks, using poorly thought out tactics and very bad japanese command decisions/doctrine
. Unfortunately for them they went against a guy namd Zhukov who actually did know what he was doing. How to use combined arms and massed tank formations, a lesson the IJA never did learn in all their years of war.
This is all so well documented, as is the quality of IJA tanks and the steel used for them, that I just cant argue it with two people who only blubber about books, "as if Im going to bother reading them over this". Find evidence I can read by clicking a mouse, which you cant. The pacific war wasnt really a tank war, oh I know there were some tanks, due to terrain, and tank manufacturing/quality was a low priority for their high command manufactureing decision making. The truth is neither side considered the Pacific terrain as very good for classic tank tactics. Because of this the Allies aimed most of their tank production at Europe and North Africa, The IJA had theirs limited by design and a limited manufactureing base. They had some good tacticians but pretty much nobody listened to them. Even the few occasions they had success didnt translate into much. A suicidal IJA soldier with a tank mine in his hands was a bigger threat to our tanks then their tanks were. Yaknow theres a reason why "great tank battles" on WW2 history TV channels never show any pacific ones.
A good source http://www.scribd.com/doc/60050507/Tank-Battles-of-the-Pacific-War-1941-1945 enjoy.
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. I cant continue to argue this with two guys who, one of whom just mentions book names, and a second only tells me to "read more books". http://books.google.com/books?id=L2wlf8tSyMEC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=tarawa+tank+battle&source=bl&ots=FZn-8faBEe&sig=tt4DvMtLpLXzro0TmPidEwPCIVE&hl=en&ei=T81FTrukIezLsQKb7IySCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=tarawa%20tank%20battle&f=false Does this sound like a classic "tank Battle"?
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.
A year after flinging the Germans back from the capital, Zhukov planned and executed the Red Army's offensive at the Battle of Stalingrad, using a technique very similar to Khalkhin Gol, in which the Soviet forces held the enemy fixed in the center, built up a mass of force in the area undetected, and launched a pincer attack on the wings to trap the enemy army.
The Japanese, however, made no major strategic changes. They continued to under-estimate their adversaries, deploying piecemeal units instead of mass units, emphasizing the courage and determination of the individual soldier to make up for the lack of firepower, protection, or overwhelming numbers. The problems that faced them at Khalkhin Gol, most importantly their deployment of only two light infantry divisions, and two tank regiments, would plague them again when the Americans and British recovered from their defeats of late 1941 and early 1942 and turned to the conquest of the Japanese Empire.
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
-
Your first two few opinions contradict themselves. The fact is the IJA NEVER used armor the same way Germany did early in the war. Not EVER.
Who claimed the IJA used similar armored tactics as the Germans did? Japan's armored doctrine was similar to that of the US in that the tank was seen as a tool for directly supporting the infantry and were rarely allowed independent action. Again, this is a typical pattern with you. You can't argue the original points so you create these "artificial" points to argue when they were never brought up to begin with or even part of the original argument.
At the khalkhin-gol incident it was true they were outnumbered in tanks but they still had at least 135 and used them the way they did the entire war. Poorly made tanks, using poorly thought out tactics and . Unfortunately for them they went against a guy namd Zhukov who actually did know what he was doing. How to use combined arms and massed tank formations, a lesson the IJA never did learn in all their years of war.
Again, what evidence or any other data do you have that you can show that the tanks of the Imperial Japanese Army were poorly made? You've been asked previously to cite any sources but you haven't. No one argued that poor tactics, like the withdrawal of air support after local IJAF commanders launched a devastating air raid against the Soviets or poor logistical planning were the two major contributors to the Japanese losing this battle. However, you will not find one credible source that will cite "poorly made tanks" or other equipment as the cause.
This is all so well documented, as is the quality of IJA tanks and the steel used for them, that I just cant argue it with two people who only blubber about books, "as if Im going to bother reading them over this".
The issue with the Japanese tanks wasn't the poor quality of steel to used in their construction, because it wasn't. The problem was one of priority over the use of limited resources like steel. When hostilities commenced in in the Pacific, priority for steel went to the IJN and IJAF for warship and aircraft production and the resources needed by the army were either diverted or curtailed.
Find evidence I can read by clicking a mouse, which you cant.
I've already listed a couple of books that give the information I've cited in my posts in this thread. It is not my fault that you find it very difficult to read a book, that is why I had originally recommending someone that doesn't have this difficulty in reading it to you.
The pacific war wasnt really a tank war,
Never claimed it was, all I did was correct your original misconception about the use of tanks in the Pacific Theater.
oh I know there were some tanks, due to terrain, and tank manufacturing/quality was a low priority for their high command manufactureing decision making. The truth is neither side considered the Pacific terrain as very good for classic tank tactics.
Because tank on tank combat wasn't part of the Imperial Japanese Army's armor doctrine, the IJA saw the tank as a tool for supporting infantry, which was the same doctrine followed by the United States until the end of World War II. It was the Germans and to some lesser extent the Soviets and British, that saw the tank as more than just infantry support. So, yes you are correct that a lot of the island that were fought on weren't ideal for "tank vs. tank" combat but on the islands that did have terrain suitable like Saipan you did see limited tank vs. tank combat in larger than company strength. In Saipan, Vol. Hideki Goto led his 9th Tank Regiment in a night tank counter attack against Col. Jim Riseley's First Battalion, Sixth Marines which later broiled down to a tank on tank engagement when Marine Shermans and LVT(A)-4 amtanks got into the battle. Out of 50 tanks, Goto lost 38 tanks and his regiment was only left with 12 tanks, of which most were in dire need of repair.
Because of this the Allies aimed most of their tank production at Europe and North Africa, The IJA had theirs limited by design and a limited manufactureing base.
No, it wasn't because the terrain wasn't "ideal for classic tank combat" it is because the defeat of Nazi Germany was the main priority for both the United States and England. It was decided at the beginning of the war, the main war effort would be in defeating Hitler, while we held the Japanese in check until war was over in Europe and we could then devote full resources in destroying Japan. That is the sole reason why the ETO and MTO received the majority of tanks that were built. This just wasn't with tanks, it was with everything. It was worse in the CBI, they got the PTO guys' hand me downs.
Japan's limitations in their designs again was based on priority and poor strategic thinking, not due to any "limited manufacturing base" or poor quality of steel.
They had some good tacticians but pretty much nobody listened to them. Even the few occasions they had success didnt translate into much.
In my opinion, that problem is the direct result of the mentality of both the IJA and IJN high command, they were very slow to learn from mistakes and battles and were so caught up in their own mythos that it really did blind them severely in making some critical strategic decisions. Even Yamamoto was guilty of this, which can be evidenced in his strategy to defend the Solomons before his death.
Yaknow theres a reason why "great tank battles" on WW2 history TV channels never show any pacific ones.
It's a shame because the night charge of the 9th Tank Regiment would make a cool episode but I mostly suspect that unlike the majority of tank battles in the ETO/MTO, the tank battles didn't start off as such but rather attacks in support of infantry that developed into tank battles when opposing armor showed up.
ack-ack
-
No, actually you just FAIL :aok
:cheers: Oz
Hey keep it kind. Its a forum and trolling is fround uppon thankyou
-
Your first two few opinions contradict themselves. The fact is the IJA NEVER used armor the same way Germany did early in the war. Not EVER. At the
khalkhin-gol incident it was true they were outnumbered in tanks but they still had at least 135 and used them the way they did the entire war. Poorly made tanks, using poorly thought out tactics and . Unfortunately for them they went against a guy namd Zhukov who actually did know what he was doing. How to use combined arms and massed tank formations, a lesson the IJA never did learn in all their years of war.
This is all so well documented, as is the quality of IJA tanks and the steel used for them, that I just cant argue it with two people who only blubber about books, "as if Im going to bother reading them over this". Find evidence I can read by clicking a mouse, which you cant. The pacific war wasnt really a tank war, oh I know there were some tanks, due to terrain, and tank manufacturing/quality was a low priority for their high command manufactureing decision making. The truth is neither side considered the Pacific terrain as very good for classic tank tactics. Because of this the Allies aimed most of their tank production at Europe and North Africa, The IJA had theirs limited by design and a limited manufactureing base. They had some good tacticians but pretty much nobody listened to them. Even the few occasions they had success didnt translate into much. A suicidal IJA soldier with a tank mine in his hands was a bigger threat to our tanks then their tanks were. Yaknow theres a reason why "great tank battles" on WW2 history TV channels never show any pacific ones.
A good source http://www.scribd.com/doc/60050507/Tank-Battles-of-the-Pacific-War-1941-1945 enjoy.
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
you really don't know what you're talking about or have any reading comprehension do you? :rofl
you need to read your own references again until you comprehend what is written.
-
The issue with the Japanese tanks wasn't the poor quality of steel to used in their construction, because it wasn't. The problem was one of priority over the use of limited resources like steel. When hostilities commenced in in the Pacific, priority for steel went to the IJN and IJAF for warship and aircraft production and the resources needed by the army were either diverted or curtailed.
Gee now he's qouteing me directly. And I never even wrote a book. 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.
Another well documnted Historian. Arent you going to tell me what books "I" should read ? Or should I just hang my head in shame over your rediculous two Liner ?
you really don't know what you're talking about or have any reading comprehension do you?
you need to read your own references again until you comprehend what is written.
-
Hey keep it kind. Its a forum and trolling is fround uppon thankyou
well he's right you two tried to one up akak and both failed... :noid
-
well he's right you two tried to one up akak and both failed... :noid
Thats what these things turn into. Little playmates and cartoon air buddies coming down in support of their 'mo. None of them offering any evidence or hard actual historical data to counter the original points. Its a shame, cause threads like these, if played out on an intellectual level, could be interesting. Most of all if discussed on a gentlemanly level. Even a silly two sentence post could be interesting if actually backed up by data and research. But this, "I know 'Mo and not you so your wrong" stuff I left behind in kintergarten".
Honestly, sometimes I think the wrong ape left the trees for the savanahs.
-
Which Japanese tank had the SHVAK 20mm, the same one used in the LA's, as it's main gun?
-
Yawn
-
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.
you could say the U.S. tanks in the ETO were out classed by the German tanks or the Soviets tanks vs. The germans.. it was the massive numbers that overwhelmed them (and things like airpower and comand) so ruling out a tank cuz it was used poorly is a poor point.. it is a tank and can attack. We have a jep and everyone loves that thing..
-
Another well documnted Historian. Arent you going to tell me what books "I" should read ? Or should I just hang my head in shame over your rediculous two Liner ?
when you can spell something as simple as ridiculous properly you may have a chance.
amazingly even a 13 year old could read your own references and comprehend more than you do. the kalkhin gol incident in no way reflects the manufacturing quality of japanese armor, nor does the entire pacific campaign, obviously something you do not fully comprehend.
key fact #1, japanese army command forbade the use of aircraft during the conflict after the first successful raid on a soviet airfield, june 27 1939. there is nothing documented as to why the decision was made but air superiority proved to be a key to success on the ground later in the war, chalk it up to military short sightedness.
key fact #2, when zhukov brought in the soviet armor, there was very little soviet infantry in the battle compared to the number of japanese. zhukov brought a large number of bt-5s (1933 design) and bt-7s (1935 design). the japanese situation was the opposite, lots of infantry, not a lot of armor. the bulk of the japanese armor cam with the 3rd and 4th armored regiments which totaled something in the line of 150 tanks and armored cars. the japanese 3rd armored regiment had a small number of type-97 and type-89b tanks. the 4th armored regiment had a small number of type-95 and type-89a tanks. they did not expect to encounter as much soviet armor as what zhukov brought in.
key fact #3, both sides fought to stalemates repeatedly throughout the conflict until zhukov, with armor superiority and air support, used tactics very similar to what was used against the german army at stalingrad. japanese command viewed the soviets to be inferior to their own people and thus underestimated their military capabilities. a mistake they repeated in 1941 against the u.s.
i find it amusing that you associate 4 or 5 to 1 odds with poor materials and manufacturing processes. by all accounts the bt-5 and bt-7 weren't much better than the japanese armor, considering a molotov cocktail could put one out of commission. until the kalkhin gol incident the japanese didn't need massive amounts of armor. if you actually look at the construction of both the early soviet and japanese armor, they were of similar quality. something that was proven to the soviets against early german panzers during operation barbarossa.
here's a good read for you:
http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/drea2/drea2.asp#16 (http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/drea2/drea2.asp#16)
one of the better online resources for some military history.
as for the concept of armored infantry support, you really should study it a bit more. the japanese, british and u.s. primarily used armor in what we now look at as classic infantry support roles. heavy infantry supported by armor used to destroy enemy emplacements. the germans started out using mechanized infantry supported by tanks, artillery and close air support. the soviets used armor to spearhead their attacks with infantry and artillery support. there are always examples of variations and exceptions to the concept but if you bother to study it, it all boils down to the same basic idea.
-
At least it would bring a variety of tanks in the game.
-
"sigh" this isnt a thread about the kalkhin gol incident . All that you have said has already been covered. Do remember there was 6 years of war after kalkhin gol.
What I said was their tanks werent very good, their steel plate quality was poor, they werent used well, and they had little impact in the war.
Honestly I dont know what kind of point your trying to make. The IJA was so thrilled with their Kalkhin gol tanks they removed them from theater and designed bigger guns for them. But even then my points were directed at their war with us, the western Allies. And even your 'moe doesnt dispute the steel quality and low priority of tank construction decisions by their High command. Maybe you should start a separate kalkhin gol incident thread if you want to impress ?
-
Your first two few opinions contradict themselves. The fact is the IJA NEVER used armor the same way Germany did early in the war. Not EVER. At the
khalkhin-gol incident it was true they were outnumbered in tanks but they still had at least 135 and used them the way they did the entire war. Poorly made tanks, using poorly thought out tactics and . Unfortunately for them they went against a guy namd Zhukov who actually did know what he was doing. How to use combined arms and massed tank formations, a lesson the IJA never did learn in all their years of war.
This is all so well documented, as is the quality of IJA tanks and the steel used for them, that I just cant argue it with two people who only blubber about books, "as if Im going to bother reading them over this". Find evidence I can read by clicking a mouse, which you cant. The pacific war wasnt really a tank war, oh I know there were some tanks, due to terrain, and tank manufacturing/quality was a low priority for their high command manufactureing decision making. The truth is neither side considered the Pacific terrain as very good for classic tank tactics. Because of this the Allies aimed most of their tank production at Europe and North Africa, The IJA had theirs limited by design and a limited manufactureing base. They had some good tacticians but pretty much nobody listened to them. Even the few occasions they had success didnt translate into much. A suicidal IJA soldier with a tank mine in his hands was a bigger threat to our tanks then their tanks were. Yaknow theres a reason why "great tank battles" on WW2 history TV channels never show any pacific ones.
A good source http://www.scribd.com/doc/60050507/Tank-Battles-of-the-Pacific-War-1941-1945 enjoy.
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
You look for data on the internet expecting it to be accurate which makes you a fool, now the thing is about books they dont get deleted and whats in them can't be changed once it has been put down on paper.
Books been around a hell of alot longer than internet thats for sure, I believe if im correct books date back to the days of the Roman Empire.
Ill put it this way books/read em I guarantee you 9 out of 10 of them will be accurate.
-
Gee now he's qouteing me directly. And I never even wrote a book.
Another well documnted Historian. Arent you going to tell me what books "I" should read ? Or should I just hang my head in shame over your rediculous two Liner ?
It's actually a recap of my first post in this thread. I do like how you finally came around and agreed with my original point.
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.
Thats what these things turn into. Little playmates and cartoon air buddies coming down in support of their 'mo. None of them offering any evidence or hard actual historical data to counter the original points.
I offered evidence, actual historical data and even cited my sources to back up my points. I guess since they are books and not some website, I guess in your mind that just doesn't count as accurate historical data.
Its a shame, cause threads like these, if played out on an intellectual level, could be interesting.
Unfortunately, in this thread and in others you've posted in, you've shown that you're unable to discuss anything on an "intellectual level". You can't even properly debate a point, let alone try and carry on an intellectual discussion.
Most of all if discussed on a gentlemanly level. Even a silly two sentence post could be interesting if actually backed up by data and research. But this, "I know 'Mo and not you so your wrong" stuff I left behind in kintergarten".
Again, I cited my sources and you yet to post any credible source to back up your claim that Japan's tanks were poorly made.
ack-ack
-
"sigh" this isnt a thread about the kalkhin gol incident . All that you have said has already been covered. Do remember there was 6 years of war after kalkhin gol.
I believe you were the first one to introduce the Battles of Khalkhin Gol into this thread when you tried to convince us that your claim of poorly made Japanese tanks was a major contributor to their loss to the Soviets.
What I said was their tanks werent very good, their steel plate quality was poor, they werent used well, and they had little impact in the war.
And you were wrong about the quality of the manufacturing of their tanks.
Honestly I dont know what kind of point your trying to make.
Well, for starters we showed you were wrong.
The IJA was so thrilled with their Kalkhin gol tanks they removed them from theater and designed bigger guns for them. But even then my points were directed at their war with us, the western Allies. And even your 'moe doesnt dispute the steel quality and low priority of tank construction decisions by their High command. Maybe you should start a separate kalkhin gol incident thread if you want to impress ?
Again, typical Richie behavior. When you've been proven wrong in a thread, you try and change the argument to something else entirely. Previously in this thread, you did it when you tried to change the subject and argue that we were comparing Japanese tank tactics with that of Germany, now you're trying again.
I can see why you put up such a defense mechanism, it must be tiring being wrong so many times.
ack-ack
-
well he's right you two tried to one up akak and both failed... :noid
Hey im not saying m18 shouldnt come first :D
-
At least it would bring a variety of tanks in the game.
THATS WHAT THE WISH IS ABOUT, I KNOW JAP TANKS DONT COMPARE BUT I RATHER HAVE A JAP TANK IN SEA OR AVA THEN A M8
-
Best tank Japan had were the early M3s captured when Bataan fell. Only picture I have ever seen of these with the rising sun was in squadron/signal Stuart book.
-
Best tank Japan had were the early M3s captured when Bataan fell. Only picture I have ever seen of these with the rising sun was in squadron/signal Stuart book.
thin armor and small guns (by western standards) aside, for small tanks they held their own against m-3 stuarts in the first phillipine invasion, even some shermans went down in ambush situations during later battles when the u.s. turned the tables.
"sigh" this isnt a thread about the kalkhin gol incident . All that you have said has already been covered. Do remember there was 6 years of war after kalkhin gol.
you bought the subject into the light as your prime example of "poor japanese quality", and you were wrong, even based on your own reference.
What I said was their tanks werent very good, their steel plate quality was poor, they werent used well, and they had little impact in the war.
it escapes me how you come to such blatantly erroneous conclusions. their tanks were as good as anything they had to engage until the u.s. entered the war. again, the armor was "thin" compared to western standards, not poor quality. the japanese mills produced steel as good in quality as any other country throughout the 1930s and into the early 40s. yeah japanese tanks had so little effect on the war that they were used in defeating british forces in burma, u.s. forces in the phillipines and don't forget a very large chunk of china.
Honestly I dont know what kind of point your trying to make. The IJA was so thrilled with their Kalkhin gol tanks they removed them from theater and designed bigger guns for them. But even then my points were directed at their war with us, the western Allies. And even your 'moe doesnt dispute the steel quality and low priority of tank construction decisions by their High command. Maybe you should start a separate kalkhin gol incident thread if you want to impress ?
oh so no other country replaced obsolete equipment or attempted to improve it in any manner, the japanese were the only ones. yup, you're a bonafide genius. the last person i had to deal with on these boards who spouted so much wrong information from erroneous conjecture was a teenager, i sincerely hope you have a similar excuse.
again, with limited resources of raw materials, which incidently was just one of the reasons for the invasion of china and japanese military command focused more on heavy use of naval, air and infantry assets, building 40 ton tanks with large guns was not a priority. the smaller vintage tanks that had already been produced did the job until faced with overwhelming numbers at kalkhin gol and superior armor when the u.s. began it's pacific offensive.
-
yup, you're a bonafide genius. the last person i had to deal with on these boards who spouted so much wrong information from erroneous conjecture was a teenager, i sincerely hope you have a similar excuse
Boy your a hostile little cuss aintya ? Heres my last link on the glory filled History of Japanese tanks in WW-2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/7373250/15 I admit the IJA tanks did well until they faced other tanks or anti-tank guns. :D
Go ahead, get the last word in. Guys like you always have to get the last word in.
-
Boy your a hostile little cuss aintya ? Heres my last link on the glory filled History of Japanese tanks in WW-2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/7373250/15 I admit the IJA tanks did well until they faced other tanks or anti-tank guns. :D
Go ahead, get the last word in. Guys like you always have to get the last word in.
i haven't gotten hostile yet and i'm sure i won't be the one to get the last word in. did you know that in old japanese traditions like bushido, there was glory and honor in death? as far as the japanese were concerned their tanks helped provide many glorious victories.
i'm guessing you didn't fully read your last reference, if you had your continued sarcasm wouldn't be so blatantly obvious. before i quote a passage from your last reference i suppose just for clarification in case it escaped you early on in this discussion, not one person said japanese tanks were as good as panzers, tigers, t-34s, or shermans. all of which incidentally also suffered losses to other tanks and anti-tank weapons, as you so conveniently attempt to overlook.
before 1942 when japanese tank production dropped heavily, japanese tanks were very capable against other early tanks like the m3 stuart, bt-5, t-26, hotchkiss h-35, vickers mk-e, etc... in fact your last reference states of the japanese invasion of singapore on page 18: "singapore fell on february 15, due in no small measure to the effective use of tanks." the author goes on to state further down the same page: " the british 2nd royal tank regiment fought a series of costly rear guard actions in burma. by the time the survivors of the unit reached british lines in india, only one stuart tank remained in action." i don't know about you but, that doesn't sound very much like "piss poor japanese armor" to me.
what is very amusing is that if we all followed your logic, considering construction, mechanical reliability and numbers lost in battle, the t-34 would be the worst tank ever put on the modern battlefield, but strangely enough russia continued to produce the tank for decades after the war.
-
Boy your a hostile little cuss aintya ? Heres my last link on the glory filled History of Japanese tanks in WW-2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/7373250/15 I admit the IJA tanks did well until they faced other tanks or anti-tank guns. :D
Go ahead, get the last word in. Guys like you always have to get the last word in.
Unlike you I never give the last word I understand something few don't last word means nothing, but for people like you a word from the wise it is better to stay quiet and listen and learn than to open your trap and show everyone how foolish you truly are.
-
well he's right you two tried to one up akak and both failed... :noid
Exactly! Wasn't trolling. I read exactly what was said in posts.
And again he fails :aok
BTW, it would be nice to have Japanese Armor if Scenario Required it
:cheers: Oz
-
Exactly! Wasn't trolling. I read exactly what was said in posts.
And again he fails :aok
BTW, it would be nice to have Japanese Armor if Scenario Required it
:cheers: Oz
I'm sorry OK, should of said differently. Now enough of this forum B.S. and lets chill my friend :cheers: