Italian Hardware

[lunatic1]

The BT-7 could handle an M8 with little problem.

And I am not asking for these in the late war main. I want them for the early and mid war.

even a m8 kills a tigerII now and then

[Blinder]

even a m8 kills a tigerII now and then

I know. I've done it before. But we are talking about two vehicles comparably equipped and similar in size and speed. It becomes a battle of whose situational awareness is keener at the point of contact; seeing as how both vehicles have a lower profile and are far more maneuverable than a Tiger.

[Rich46yo]

The Type1 was developed by the Japanese based on their experience against the Soviets during the Battles of Khalkhin Gol.  In terms of performance, it wasn't as good as the Allied counterparts but it was still used to good effect against Sherman tanks during the island campaigns.

ack-ack

It was hardly used in combat at all, most of them were kept in Japan for defense of the main land and really didnt fare well against M4s when and "if" they did run into them. http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=500

Theres a good reason not to model Jap or Italian tanks. They were all ga-ga. I understand and appreciate the wishes of those who would like to see how these early war systems would clash, and for sure understand wanting "all" the nations who actually fought to be included. But I cant remember the last time I saw a decent crowd in the EWA.

[Tank-Ace]

Yeah, AKAK, I question that as well. Do you have a source?


And to be clear, its not that I think you're lying, but just that the Type 1 is highly inferior to the M4, and the Japanese weren't known for their skill with armor.

[Ack-Ack]

It was hardly used in combat at all, most of them were kept in Japan for defense of the main land and really didnt fare well against M4s when and "if" they did run into them. http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=500

Theres a good reason not to model Jap or Italian tanks. They were all ga-ga. I understand and appreciate the wishes of those who would like to see how these early war systems would clash, and for sure understand wanting "all" the nations who actually fought to be included. But I cant remember the last time I saw a decent crowd in the EWA.

Yeah, AKAK, I question that as well. Do you have a source?


And to be clear, its not that I think you're lying, but just that the Type 1 is highly inferior to the M4, and the Japanese weren't known for their skill with armor.

The lack of reading comprehension of some in this thread is mind boggling. 

I bolded the section of Karnak's question so you could get someone to read it to you slowly so you can understand.

Any idea how the Japanese Type 1 47mm tank gun compared to the Russian, German, American and British offerings around that size?

Would the Type 1 Chi-He be competitive with those other light tanks?

I was talking about the Type 1 47mm anti-tank gun in answering Karnak's question about it. 

ack-ack

[Karnak]

Yup, the Type 1 47mm anti-tank gun definately saw combat, just not really in the Type 1 Chi-He.  I did read Ack-Ack's response to be directed at the cannon, not the tank.

[FLOOB]

The thing about AH vehicles is that they are starting out with all the late war world-beaters. So just about any tank that is added from now on is going to be hangar decoration.

[Fish42]

The thing about AH vehicles is that they are starting out with all the late war world-beaters. So just about any tank that is added from now on is going to be hangar decoration.

Which is why I think a unique ENY spreed for the GVs would help this. A Pz-35 would not have much hope in the current game if it was 40eny when a T-34-76 is also 40 eny.

[Tank-Ace]

The lack of reading comprehension of some in this thread is mind boggling. 

I bolded the section of Karnak's question so you could get someone to read it to you slowly so you can understand.

I was talking about the Type 1 47mm anti-tank gun in answering Karnak's question about it. 

ack-ack

My mistake, sorry AKAK.

To answer your question then, Karnak, rather poorly. The Type 1 was maybe a bit better than the Soviet 45mm 53-K (four times as common as the more powerful, but still poor, M-42), but inferior to the German 50mm L/42 tank gun, British 2Lber, US M3 37mm, greatly inferior to the German Pak 38 50mm, 50mm L/60 tank gun, and British 6lbr/US M1 57mm.

[Fish42]

Any idea how the Japanese Type 1 47mm tank gun compared to the Russian, German, American and British offerings around that size?

Would the Type 1 Chi-He be competitive with those other light tanks?

The Type 1 fired two types of shell: Type 1 APHE (Armour piercing high-explosive) and Type 1 HE (High explosive).

Type 1 APHE shell
The APHE shell weighed 3.37 pounds and used a Mark 2 base fuse, the complete round weighing 6.1 pounds. It had a small explosive charge of 0.04 pounds consisting of RDX phlegmatized with 10% Paraffin. The round also had a tracer.

Armour penetration of Type 1 APHE shell
Range   Penetration at 0°   Penetration at 30°
500 yards   2.75 inches   2 inches
1,500 yards   1.6 inches   1.2 inches
Type 1 HE shell
The HE shell weighed 3.08 pounds and used the Type 88 instantaneous or short delay fuse with a complete round weighing 5.4 pounds. It contained 0.2 pounds of explosive, consisting of a small block of picric acid and a larger block of TNT.

[Karnak]

So basically 70mm at 500m and 0 degrees of deflection.

[Rich46yo]

The lack of reading comprehension of some in this thread is mind boggling.  

I bolded the section of Karnak's question so you could get someone to read it to you slowly so you can understand.

I was talking about the Type 1 47mm anti-tank gun in answering Karnak's question about it.  

ack-ack

Nice try Ack, why is it just impossible for you to admit your wrong? Or at least that you misqouted or just screwed up as we all do from time to time? I'd have let you off with that cause it aint no big deal any way. Lets go back in history.

Any idea how the Japanese Type 1 47mm tank gun compared to the Russian, German, American and British offerings around that size?

Would the Type 1 Chi-He be competitive with those other light tanks?

The original post that you replied to. What part of "Japanese Type 1 tank gun" and "Any idea how the Japanese Type 1 47mm tank gun compared to" did you have trouble understanding?

The Type1 was developed by the Japanese based on their experience against the Soviets during the Battles of Khalkhin Gol.  In terms of performance, it wasn't as good as the Allied counterparts but it was still used to good effect against Sherman tanks during the island campaigns.
ack-ack

THE reply post. at no time in either post was the 47mm ATG mentioned, "which would what? Go well with all the other pushable ATG guns we have in the game?" We were talking about tanks, you know we were talking about tanks, everyone that read the post knows we were talking about tanks. And this is just Lame. This isnt an ATG thread.

Look if it makes you feel better I didnt even know ANY type 1 tanks were ever used in combat. And tho it cant be said with certainty its suspected a few were at Leyte. With anyone else I would have just let this go but since you make a living checking every dot and comma, and are so often insulting and condescending, even still when your obviously wrong and "F"'ed up

The lack of reading comprehension of some in this thread is mind boggling.

  You just cant help yourself can you?

Well...if anyone makes an anti tank gun thread I'll be the first to say this is the first mobile one I want in the game. Maybe we can get the drunken para's to push it.

[Fish42]

Whoa, hang on a sec.

Karnak asked 2 questions.

Q1: Any idea how the Japanese Type 1 47mm tank gun compared to the Russian, German, American and British offerings around that size?

Q2: Would the Type 1 Chi-He be competitive with those other light tanks?

Tank-Ace replied to the second question. Then Ack-Ack answered the first question.

The Type1 was developed by the Japanese based on their experience against the Soviets during the Battles of Khalkhin Gol.  In terms of performance, it wasn't as good as the Allied counterparts but it was still used to good effect against Sherman tanks during the island campaigns.

ack-ack

The Type 1 Ack-Ack was talking about was the 47mm, as he quotes the Battles of Khalkhin Gol. It was these battles that prompted the design of the 47mm after the  Type 94 37 mm Anti-Tank Gun proved ineffective verses the Bt-2/7 and T-46s fielded by the Russians at that time.

Your First reply to Ack-Ack after this post is as follows.

It was hardly used in combat at all, most of them were kept in Japan for defense of the main land and really didnt fare well against M4s when and "if" they did run into them. http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=500

Theres a good reason not to model Jap or Italian tanks. They were all ga-ga. I understand and appreciate the wishes of those who would like to see how these early war systems would clash, and for sure understand wanting "all" the nations who actually fought to be included. But I cant remember the last time I saw a decent crowd in the EWA.

You have seen the Type 1 and confused the Type 1 47mm that ack-ack was talking about with the Type 1 Chi-He. What you stated was true for the Chi-he but you were replying to a post about a gun, not a tank.

Tank-Ace followed on from your post without seeing the jump you made.

[Karnak]

Rich,

The Type 1 47mm gun is both the tank gun and the anti-tank gun.  It is the same gun. I think you owe Ack-Ack an apology.

[Rich46yo]

Rich,

The Type 1 47mm gun is both the tank gun and the anti-tank gun.  It is the same gun. I think you owe Ack-Ack an apology.

I know it is and I dont "owe" anybody nothing. Now either get back on track with the thread or I'll just leave it. Nobody was talking about ATGs or even mentioned them and thats the end of it.

Its a good thread so enough of this.