Why were Japanese tank so garbage in ww2?

Pic related is the pinnacle of Japanese armour. Shermans mopped the floor with Japanese tanks.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why were Japanese tank so garbage in ww2?
    no funds
    japanese navy became the favored branch of the military leaving the army to scavenge for scraps
    by the time the war caused the army need for tanks to be taken seriously, they were already in shambles

    japanese tank development was actually pretty good throughout the 1930s, before the army lost favor and all funds were re-allocated to the navy
    the ha-go was actually a good light tank by 1936 standards and fought evenly with the M3 stuart, a light tank a few years more advanced

    it wasnt strictly bad, just heavily outdated

    > Shermans mopped the floor with Japanese tanks.
    they never met, the chi-nu was reserved for defense of the homeland which never arrived

    though the chi-nu can be considered roughly equal to the panzer IV G
    with a high velocity 75mm gun, 50mm front armor, and average mobility
    again, not a bad tank by 1942/43 standards, just heavily outdated by 1944, when it entered service

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >not a bad tank by 1942/43 standards, just heavily outdated by 1944
      Did THAT much really happen in tanking in 1 year?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the chi-nu is a dead-ringer for the late 1942 panzer IV G, with a long 75mm gun and 50mm frontal armor
        engine power was a measly 250hp, but the chi-nu also only weighted ~20tons, this is probably the area where japanese industries simply could not do any better no matter what pre-war decisions they made
        in 1943, the panzer IV H increased frontal armor to 80mm
        and in 1944, the 40-ton panther entered the scene

        on the allied side
        the 1944 was the year the T-34-85 and M4 76mm entered service
        the chi-nu was actually about equal to them in firepower
        but both the late-war allied mediums were sporting 40mm side armor and 90mm LOS front armor pushed along by 500hp engines

        japanese also were late to the optics party
        the chi-nu has almost no vision devices for the crew, barring a cupola (with no vision blocs) and the gunner telescopic sight
        the T-34 had a cupola since 1942 while the M4 got a cupola as standard on the 76mm version

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >chi-nu has almost no vision devices for the crew, barring a cupola (with no vision blocs)
          They had some more than that, but anything about them is extremely difficult to find about.
          Chi-Has had a 10x periscope for commander. After that it was changed to 2-8x periscope or a fixed 1x. The telescopic periscope can be seen in some pictures.
          At least Chi-Nu and Chi-To had that 1x periscope for gunner as well, but you can't see it properly in photos. Their small hatches are there at least.
          >gunner telescopic sight
          Chi-Ha Kai and all the following tanks had fixed magnification gun sights.
          I haven't heard about their 37mm and short 57mm, but there doesn't seem to be any point for those to have anything special.

          >engine power was a measly 250hp, but the chi-nu also only weighted ~20tons, this is probably the area where japanese industries simply could not do any better no matter what pre-war decisions they made
          That's because it's just a new turret on Chi-He, which wasn't supposed to be anything more than modernized Chi-Ha. Same size for logistics.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Should have been shipped to China post war.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          76mm shermans and 85mm T-34s werent that ubiquitous in 1944, the chinu would've easily faced against common shermans and 76mm T-34s too. iirc, in summer 1944 the US had something like one 76mm sherman to fifteen 75mm, or something like that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the chinu would've easily faced against common shermans and 76mm T-34s too. i

            Lol, no it fricking couldn't you moron. E8 or Jumbo models with 76mm (HVAP rounds) could smoke those shitboxes from 2km.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Is the E8 in the room right now?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >76mm shermans and 85mm T-34s werent that ubiquitous in 1944
            soviets had 100% T-34-85 in frontline units in 1944
            US adoption of the 76mm sherman was slower but was still 25% at the end of 1944, climbing up to 50% in 1945

            the chi-nu, being withheld for the invasion of japan, would have mostly fought 76mm shermans in army units with only a minority of 75mm shermans for anti-fort or WP shell launching
            marine units would have had 75mm shermans, but of the large-hatch M4A2 variant rather than the early war M4A1s or M4s

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >T-34-85 Being on par with the Chi Nu's 75mm
          The Soviet 85mm was ballistically superior to the Japanese 75mm in every way, shape, and form.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Didn't the Japanese use stronger engines for their abortive O-I project?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            O-I had 2x550hp gasoline engines. Chi-Ri prototyped used a single one.
            The 400hp aircooled diesel in Chi-To was probably more promising and it was planned to be supercharged to 500hp.

            https://i.imgur.com/TL98EFu.jpeg

            Doesn't fricking matter this discussion. The non light tanks were kept in Honshu and if the invasion happened, they wouldn't even get to meet Shermans before a Corsair or Hellcat drops bombs on it.

            >before a Corsair or Hellcat drops bombs on it
            If only they had such accuracy. Age of tanks over and all that.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Age of tanks over

              Wut?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Did THAT much really happen in tanking in 1 year?
        homie have you never heard of ww2 tank warfare before? This is entry level stuff

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The arms race story of it all is half why tanks are so frickin' cool, man.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Good point

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Ha-Go
      >Even with the Stuart
      Maybe if the engagement conditions were heavily weighted towards the Ha-Go like an ambush or something. The thinnest armor on the Stuart is nearly as thick as the frontal armor of the Ha-Go. Consider that the two 37mm guns were wildly different in power and ammunition quality as well. Not even gonna touch any of the other factors as they're all heavily weighted on the Stuart's favor.
      Have a Type 97 Ha-Go that got rocked on one of the islands, courtesy of the Imperial War Museum

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Correction, Chi-Ha.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The thinnest armor on the Stuart is nearly as thick as the frontal armor of the Ha-Go
        which is to say none at all. these little light tanks don't have much armor and will fold to most projectiles easily. the differences are negligible and boil down to which tank is more operationally suitable for what it is meant to do, in which the Type 95 is much better.
        >lighter
        >better traction
        >smaller
        >more reliable

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          stuart was much more reliable though

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I wouldn't be surprised, but then again I don't believe there has ever been an objective comparison before you post it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Difference is the Ha-Go got eaten alive by .50 cal fire while the Stuart actually had a good chance of richocheting jap 37mm or stopping it completely. Testing of the 37mm showed shit penetration characteristics of less than 40mm at
          No idea about the traction, but I'd be impressed if there was a significant difference.

          https://i.imgur.com/YC2ehhV.jpeg

          >again, not a bad tank by 1942/43 standards, just heavily outdated by 1944, when it entered service
          homie it was still within the design spec even by the end of the war, for a medium tank at least. also I'm seeing a lot of fellation for mutt metal coffins like the Sherman ITT like it had some good armor when even 25mm anti aircraft guns went through its sides.

          Yup, the 25mm actually had some power behind it and could penetrate the side armor of most medium tanks of the time without much effort. In fact the 25mm had more power than the 37mm. Again reiterating what a dog shit cannon it was.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Japanese Type 98 37mm that was used on the Ha-Go after 1938 could go through the front of the Stuart at 500ish meters. The Stuart was an overall better tank in terms of on paper pure tank vs tank engagement but most of the limited tank combat in the Pacific was not going to be at ranges longer than that given the environment. It was in the category of medium tanks that Japan was not even close to the US, the light tanks weren't that far off. I imagine that's more a function of the US not developing light tanks beyond the Stuart during the war though

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Hull and turret were 44mm and 38mm respectively. Im personally not familar with the type 98 37mm and the Army report I have doesnt report much on it besides it may have been mounted to tanks. The report is dated for 1945, so it sounds like it was a rsther late decelopment. The Japanese 1934 37mm cannon however was reported to have roughly 36mm of pen at 300 yards. Maybe if they got a solid hit on the turret or were at near point blank range could they smash through the front the of the M3 Stuart. That 37 really was just grossly underpowered even for when they were fighting chinkoids

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >it sounds like it was a rsther late decelopment
                Serial production of the 37mm Type 98 started in August 1940 and entirely replaced the Type 94 for all 37mm-armed tanks produced from that date onwards.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >again, not a bad tank by 1942/43 standards, just heavily outdated by 1944, when it entered service
      homie it was still within the design spec even by the end of the war, for a medium tank at least. also I'm seeing a lot of fellation for mutt metal coffins like the Sherman ITT like it had some good armor when even 25mm anti aircraft guns went through its sides.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >25mm anti aircraft guns went through its sides.

        It did not, you complete moron

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          oh yeah and that photograph is fake news too, you mcdonalds eating subhuman. The revered Tommy Cooker had a whooping 1.5 inches of thickness in its sides, which 25mm anti aircraft guns with AP can go through as we can clearly see here

          https://i.imgur.com/YC2ehhV.jpeg

          >again, not a bad tank by 1942/43 standards, just heavily outdated by 1944, when it entered service
          homie it was still within the design spec even by the end of the war, for a medium tank at least. also I'm seeing a lot of fellation for mutt metal coffins like the Sherman ITT like it had some good armor when even 25mm anti aircraft guns went through its sides.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Later models had way thicker armor to the side, you complete frickwad. and we were talking about Jap vs western tanks comparison.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Sherman had 38mm side armor, the type 96 25mm gun's armor-piercing rounds had 40mm of penetration at 100m. Not going to be hard to find a sub 100m sightline on a Pacific island battlefield.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            if it was perfectly perpendicular
            even a slight change in angle would increase LOS thickness

            76mm shermans and 85mm T-34s werent that ubiquitous in 1944, the chinu would've easily faced against common shermans and 76mm T-34s too. iirc, in summer 1944 the US had something like one 76mm sherman to fifteen 75mm, or something like that.

            there were 1000 M4A1 76mm shermans delivered in the first batch of long gun shermans, which would have been about 1-in-5 shermans
            M4A3 76mm shermans trickled in over the rest of the normandy campaign, resulting in 1-in-4 shermans before 1945 rolled around and they just stopped making 75mm shermans entirely
            they ended up making 10,000 76mm shermans, so they were very common place

            https://i.imgur.com/YC2ehhV.jpeg

            >again, not a bad tank by 1942/43 standards, just heavily outdated by 1944, when it entered service
            homie it was still within the design spec even by the end of the war, for a medium tank at least. also I'm seeing a lot of fellation for mutt metal coffins like the Sherman ITT like it had some good armor when even 25mm anti aircraft guns went through its sides.

            >homie it was still within the design spec even by the end of the war
            literally no one was fielding anything remotely close to the chi-nu as their primary medium tank in 1945
            the US had already mostly switched over to the M4A3, the germans were using panthers and panzer IV Hs, and the soviets were now using the T-34-85

            the only thing competitive about the chi-nu was its gun, armor was incredibly sub-par, mobility was average at best
            vision devices were limited to telescopic sights, and the chi-nu didnt even have a co-axial machine gun, just the rear turret gun and the hull gun

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >the only thing competitive about the chi-nu was its gun
              At the end of the day, that's what matters more than anything else in a hypothetical where Japanese armor is defending Kyushu and Honshu from an Allied invasion. Which, you know, is the only realistic scenario where the Chi-Nu would have been employed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >that's what matters more
                armor matters, mobility matters, having visibility that didnt suck mattered
                a tank is a weapons system

                the chi-nu was already an outdated vehicle in 1943, that was first produced in 1944 and would have only saw combat in 1945
                its like saying the P40 was a good tank in 1944 because it had a 75mm gun while ignoring its pitiful riveted 60mm frontal armor plate

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >anon confirmed for no reading comprehension
                Love to see it. I said the gun's capability mattered more than anything else, not that it was the only thing that did matter. These are two different sentences, I posted the first one but you argued against the second.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I said the gun's capability mattered more than anything else
                having a panzer IV G with a 240hp engine and an M3 75mm gun would make the chi-nu worse than the M4A2 used by the marines and hilariously overmatched by the army M4A3 76mm

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I was not contending that the Chi-Nu was a better tank overall than the Sherman simply because of its gun. That's fricking moronic, but somehow it's the point you think I'm making. My point about the gun is solely that it's better for the Chi-Nu to have a roughly equivalent gun to a Sherman rather than equivalent armor, mobility, or optics given the terrain these two tanks would have fought on. If it can't kill a Sherman at 500m or less, it's a waste of very scarce resources for Japan regardless of any other qualities it has. Would it have been nice if it had thicker armor and a better engine? Sure, but we're talking about a Japanese industry that had been choked off by a submarine blockade. They had to make compromises, and the gun is the obvious thing they tried to optimize above all else.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Japanese armor is defending Kyushu and Honshu from an Allied invasion

                By October of 1945, US Army would have moved on entirely to Pershing's.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                2000 Pershings had been manufactured by the end of 1945, enough to fully equip two armor divisions once you account for spares, training vehicles, and so on. Nowhere near all that number would have been in position for Olympic. 10 or so had been shipped to Okinawa, but apparently in no great hurry since they didn't even land until August. Two tank battalions in Hawaii earmarked for Olympic were supposed to be equipped with Pershings, but still had Shermans when they shipped out for occupation duty in September. So while Pershings would likely have been present for Olympic and replacement tanks would mostly be Pershings, I highly doubt they'd have replaced even a majority of the Shermans in theatre prior to the invasion. Remember, this would have been the largest amphibious invasion to date, with the longest logistical tail of any amphibious invasion to date. Okinawa is around 400 miles from the Kyushu beaches, and that's the closest base. It's a lot of effort and time to re-equip all the units in the Pacific prior to November.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >2000 Pershings had been manufactured by the end of 1945

                That's because they stopped making them by mid august. and it's still over 12x as much as japs had their medium tanks.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >That's because they stopped making them by mid august
                Even if for sake of argument the US kept producing Pershings through to 1946, that doesn't magick them into 6th and 8th Army's inventories. Those formations were operating on a 150-180 day requisition cycle, see picrel. The photo is of brand new 76mm Shermans delivered to Manila Ordnance in summer 1945. These tanks were requisitioned immediately after the Leyte campaign in December 1944. It takes a lot of time to ship tanks from the midwest USA to the front in the Pacific.

                Now, recall. In January 1944, the ETO commanders tell the War Department they don't want any more 75mm Shermans, only 76mm Shermans and Pershings. This means no Pershings are going to the PTO until the war in Europe is done, and in reality only 12 were sent to the Pacific immediately following VE Day and 126 more slated for two tank battalions still in Hawaii. At absolute minimum you are looking at 6 months to redirect existing production from the east coast to the west coast for shipment to Okinawa starting in late May/early June. Those tanks are arriving in the PTO as Olympic is kicking off, even accounting for delays caused by the historical October 1945 typhoon. The idea that you're somehow rearming the entirety of 6th and 8th Army with Pershings prior to Olympic is laughable, and even prior to Coronet would be stretching it.

                >it's still over 12x as much as japs had their medium tanks.
                Don't care, didn't ask, has nothing to do with the contention

                >Japanese armor is defending Kyushu and Honshu from an Allied invasion

                By October of 1945, US army would have moved on entirely to Pershing's.

                that the US forces invading Japan would be entirely outfitted with Pershings by fricking October lmao

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              not that the Chi-Nu's gun was spectacular
              >65 mm at 1,000 m
              meh

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                even at the muzzle it could only supposedly do 90mm of penetration, which would put it roughly on par with the M3 75mm
                so competitive is perhaps too generous, adequate might be the better term

                the sherman had 90mm line of sight frontal armor, but the slope means it would actually degrade the performance of the round
                so the chi-nu would likely not be able to penetrate the M4s frontal armor unless the M4 was going down hill and negating the slope
                in turn, the 75mm was known to penetrate the 50mm front hull of the panzer IV G at combat ranges and the 80mm panzer IV H at very close range, the 76mm could do either at long range even with natural angle

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Iwo Jima
        This husk was knocked out at Tarawa, not Iwo Jima, but by a 25mm Type 96 as mentioned, which poses a threat to the extremely think side armor at sub 200m ranges. Even 37mm AT guns were still a threat to late war Shermans below 500 meters, provided they have a shot on the side hull.
        >cc: HVAP

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >mutt metal coffins like the Sherman
        weren't sherman one of the best ww2 tanks crew casualty rate wise?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          yeah, they were one of if not the most survivable tanks of the war. They were called "tommy cookers" because the bongs completely filled the ammo stowage and dumped extra rounds into the turret basket then wondered why nigel kept getting roasted after turning his tank into a pipe bomb.
          Or so I've heard, I would hate to wrongly imply that euros would blame american equipment for their own failings. Such a thing is unprecedented.
          This is where I would attach an f104 pic if uploading files was allowed in incognito mode.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >then wondered why nigel kept getting roasted
            Nobody 'wondered'. They knew why. The term Tommy Cooker is the name the Germans created. It wasn't some how a surprise. The Bongs just valued the extra ammo and were told not to do it but you can't stop soldiers in the field doing things. Same when tank crews were told not to put sandbags on their tanks, or spare tracks or tree logs. It did nothing but hinder the performance of the vehicle but you try telling a tank crew that when they feel 'safer' with the extra shit there. Same issue happens even today, Stryker crews put sand-water mixtures inside the vehicle to try and help it and this shit was extensively tested and did absolutely nothing to help the vehicle survive and just fricked with the engine and suspension and transmission but, again, you try telling that to the crew (again, they were regularly told it didn't do shit).

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You’d think the Bongs would have learned their lesson at Jutland.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                why not tell soldiers not to "fraternize" with prostitutes while you're at it

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Incidentally, leaving bulkhead doors open and sacks of propellant lying around during General Quarters (for the sake of a slightly higher ROF) is one of the reasons British BCs tended to assplode in combat. The one BC that didn't do that, HMS Lion, took a whole bunch of direct hits at Jutland and was fine. And the Lion didn't do it because the whole crew was green and followed the book instead of fighting how they trained. They couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from inside it, but that's a separate issue.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The one BC that didn't do that
                other way around
                most of the battle fleet were trained not to do that

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >risking your own survivability to bring more ammunition so that you can engage more targets and support your fellow soldiers before driving away to safety
            >criticising this from the safety of your parents' basement

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I don't care what they did or why they did it, I was saying that the Sherman's reputation of being a death trap is undeserved and due to it being operated in an unsafe manner.
              If I refuse to wear my seatbelt, I don't turn around and say "this car is unsafe" when I get into a crash and find out why they put the seatbelts there in the first place.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the chi-nu is a dead-ringer for the late 1942 panzer IV G, with a long 75mm gun and 50mm frontal armor
      engine power was a measly 250hp, but the chi-nu also only weighted ~20tons, this is probably the area where japanese industries simply could not do any better no matter what pre-war decisions they made
      in 1943, the panzer IV H increased frontal armor to 80mm
      and in 1944, the 40-ton panther entered the scene

      on the allied side
      the 1944 was the year the T-34-85 and M4 76mm entered service
      the chi-nu was actually about equal to them in firepower
      but both the late-war allied mediums were sporting 40mm side armor and 90mm LOS front armor pushed along by 500hp engines

      japanese also were late to the optics party
      the chi-nu has almost no vision devices for the crew, barring a cupola (with no vision blocs) and the gunner telescopic sight
      the T-34 had a cupola since 1942 while the M4 got a cupola as standard on the 76mm version

      >50mm frontal armor
      You are thinking of the earlier panzer IV F variants. By the time the G game along they increased the frontal armor to 80mm to better withstand Soviet 76mm guns.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Going off of very rudimentary looking at wikipedia and comparing penetration v armor thickness i did. The chi-nu could probably defeat a sherman if it were in an ambush or otherwise landed a hit on the sides or rear. But a hit from a sherman would almost certainly knock any chi nu out and even if it were to destroy one, tow, even a whole squad of 5, there were simply so many shermans it wouldn't matter

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >why did a nation that primarily fought nations with no armor have light tanks
    >why did a nation that then had to conduct amphibious operations in areas with poor infrastructure have light tanks
    >why did a nation that focused primarily on its navy have light tanks
    >why did a homosexual named OP not know this

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >why did a nation that primarily fought nations with no armor have light tanks
      japanese actually took tank development seriously and had lined up proposals for medium tanks since before the war
      they just never took off due to the above-mentioned rivalry with the navy

      >why did a nation that then had to conduct amphibious operations in areas with poor infrastructure have light tanks
      see above: they always wanted heavier tanks
      the chi-ha was actually fairly typical in weight for its time
      the army northern strategy would have expected very heavy armored war against the soviets
      and the war in china was ongoing, a ground war where the japanese were fighting tooth and nail to get heavier tanks into the theatre

      TLDR:
      japan had outdated (but not bad) tanks because of the navy and internal politics
      but it was never due to the strategic need for island hopping
      the chi-nu, the heaviest vehicle they made, was actually a result of the british and aussies fielding M3 lees in burma and reports from the germans that US armor was getting heavier
      and they rightfully anticipated that it was only a matter of time before those same heavy tanks would find their way even on to tiny islands

      and while it took until late 1943 for the M4 sherman to actually show up at tarawa, it all but confirmed that heavy tank-on-tank combat that they were worrying about was inevitable

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Do you really want me to compare Pershing/Comet/Centurion to any of those IJA tanks? They could not even go up against Sherman models like easy 8 or jumbo.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Where in that post did it imply the Japanese had tanks that were on par with those?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >jumbo
          jerry rigged shit was too morbidly obese for regular service on the continent let alone a fricking island hopping campaign are you mentally moronic or just shitposting

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >was too morbidly obese for regular service on the continent let alone a fricking island hopping campaign

            No, it was not you tard.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >jerry rigged shit
            It literally wasn't. They were produced as a numbered model as brand new vehicles. They weren't converted.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        what about the navy's tanks though?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Island hopping
      >jungles

      Logistically impractical beyond infantry tankettes. They would've been better served by something like Panzerfaust being mass issued.

      >mainland shit roads, especially in mountains
      >opposition overmatch guaranteed by what they already had

      The Army put the cart before the land grab horse in Manchuria and Korea to a seditious level. IF there was strategic vision worth a damn and the positive knowledge that the USSR HAD to be confronted seriously to divide forces away from Barbarossa, then they could have had the impetus to develop a seriously competitive Tank Force that wouldn't just be rolled in battles like Khalkin Gol.

      >TLDR:
      >japan had outdated (but not bad) tanks because of the navy and internal politics

      Case was the same with Italy, who arguably had the best interwar armor vehicles, organization, and experience through the beginning of North Africa, at least until Shermans start arriving in quantity.

      They were never considered the priority because the metal output went to navy and air force.

      In most of the areas where the Japanese fought tanks would struggle to operate.
      (Burma, small islands with very few roads)
      Where they would operate well the enemy had no tanks or modern anti tank equipment so they worked very well there. (China)

      The japs had very bad supply lines so keeping tanks working have been difficult. Also tanks had to fit into Japanese ships and landing craft so small was necessary unless you wanted to redesign a substantial part of the fleet.

      The US could afford to use tanks has they had bigger transport ships, better logistics and no lack of fuel as well as most of the world steel industry at that time making them able to produce them in huge amounts. (Unlike today when all the steel industry moved to china, Korea and funny enough Japan)

      >They were never considered the priority because the metal output went to navy and air force

      This, Navy was the primary consideration for securing oil and contesting US-British presence in southern Pacific.

      Because early in the war they overran colonial defences or rushed defences or lucked out (Philippines, Singapore) and by that point they were now on the defensive and tanks weren't particularly useful. The stuff they were using in China was fine because the Chinese didn't really have many tanks.

      The Japanese realised they needed new tanks in 1940 when they got rekt by Soviet tanks but when the Soviets realised that the Japs weren't going to try shit in the East they went to go save the West and the Japs were happy to let them go. So we go back to where we are now.

      Then in 1942 Japanese Army Staff received word of the new American M4 Sherman tank, which completely outclassed every Japanese tank in production at the time. There were three projects proposed by the Staff to counter the M4; the 47mm Kou, 57mm Otsu, and 75mm Hei designs. They eventually ordered that the model Kou and Otsu merge to become the basis of what would eventually become the Type 4 Chi-To. Meanwhile, the Hei proposal would lead to the development of the Type 5 Chi-Ri. Then, in 1943, they watched USSR vs Germany tank battles and went "Oh we shouldn't do infantry support tanks anymore, we should do anti-armour tanks only" and so they took the Type 5 Chi-Ri chassis as it was the most mature of the three (now two) projects and then started fricking around with it, only to discover that by the time they were ready to produce it, US anti-tank weapons could defeat their 75mm frontal slope, so they went back and made a third version with 120mm, removed the 37mm secondary turret, put in another loader and said 'The 105mm Type 5 will do'. They made one prototype which was good and then the war ended.

      So, Japan was a case of 'We don't need tanks. Okay now we need tanks. Okay now we don't have the materials to make tanks and support our navy. Now we have lost the war."

      tl;dr - no need for tanks to be quality as it wasn't their battle tactic or an issue early on.

      All good. What they really needed was organic anti-tank teams, and maybe small tankette scaled APCs to taxi their batshit banzai charges on target in something approaching not ventilated condition.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Couldn't agree more. The thread could have picked at Britain for the same reasons.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >im gonna make a question thread that can be answered by google and chatgpt

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes god forbid anyone to discuss anything on this forum and maybe let people learn something unexpected and engage with their peers in their common interest rajeet.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >maybe let people learn something
        >on /k/, the autism nugget at the center of the universe
        I mean, i admire the hope you have here anon

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >rajeet
        You seem obsessed. Do you need help?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        good point, it's nice to discuss tanks

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        good point, it's nice to discuss tanks

        What's the point of peer discussion if a Google Search provides educated, sourced articles, while your so called discussion invovles calling people words and making claims with supporting evidences straight out of the butts?
        It's not the 90s or 00s gramp. The internet is filled with mouthbreathers much like yourself.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Discussion is still better than 'muh goggle' you moron.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Then frick of moron, what are you even doing here?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If you actually want to know something, yes. This is a parasocial friend simulator

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Go ask Google that and leave the rest of us alone.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. Let's just close down PrepHole, chatgpt can handle it.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Navy stole all the steel and the one time the army made a tank with actual armor it was a doctrine-inappropriate colossal waste of resources that further discouraged the government from giving them heavy metal.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Wasn't this unironically a better design than the massively overweight shitboxes the Nazis were pumping out at the end of the war (basically everything after the Tiger I)?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Meh not really like

      >Why were Japanese tank so garbage in ww2?
      no funds
      japanese navy became the favored branch of the military leaving the army to scavenge for scraps
      by the time the war caused the army need for tanks to be taken seriously, they were already in shambles

      japanese tank development was actually pretty good throughout the 1930s, before the army lost favor and all funds were re-allocated to the navy
      the ha-go was actually a good light tank by 1936 standards and fought evenly with the M3 stuart, a light tank a few years more advanced

      it wasnt strictly bad, just heavily outdated

      > Shermans mopped the floor with Japanese tanks.
      they never met, the chi-nu was reserved for defense of the homeland which never arrived

      though the chi-nu can be considered roughly equal to the panzer IV G
      with a high velocity 75mm gun, 50mm front armor, and average mobility
      again, not a bad tank by 1942/43 standards, just heavily outdated by 1944, when it entered service

      mentioned it was an equivalent to later pz4 models.
      The heavy kraut shitboxes weren't bad designs in of themselves. They just lacked fuel, had to rush them into production and the better engine designs came too late to be implemented. Their biggest issue was that the germans always had to switch tiny little things during production, a batch of 10 tanks produced one after another could have 6 changes to the turret.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There wasn't a need to put that much money to tank development in the Interwar period because they were fighting China, a country that at best, could field limited numbers of hand-me-down tanks from the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, if at all. After the war for Japan started in earnest in 1941, priority was (rightfully) given to the IJN because it was recognized that the Pacific War was going to be a naval war that would be decided by the quality and size of fleets, not armored divisions.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >There wasn't a need to put that much money to tank development in the Interwar period because they were fighting China,
      the invasion of manchuria was actually a major impetus for the development of their tanks
      the chi-ha was a direct response to their existing i-go medium tanks being too slow to keep up with motor infantry
      the war with china was also what got them to build the chi-ha in large quantity in the first place

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it wasn't. their tanks were perfect for their geopolitical goals. The Type 95 and 97 worked perfectly in Burma and Malaya.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong, their tanks were inferior to every western type.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Which 15 ton Western tank was better than Chi-Ha 1937-1940?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          all of them; they were better suited to their operational terrain than the Chi-Ha. this makes them far superior

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Japanese tanks were shit in WWII
    >Japanese tanks are still shit*
    Fixed that for you, king.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They were never considered the priority because the metal output went to navy and air force.

    In most of the areas where the Japanese fought tanks would struggle to operate.
    (Burma, small islands with very few roads)
    Where they would operate well the enemy had no tanks or modern anti tank equipment so they worked very well there. (China)

    The japs had very bad supply lines so keeping tanks working have been difficult. Also tanks had to fit into Japanese ships and landing craft so small was necessary unless you wanted to redesign a substantial part of the fleet.

    The US could afford to use tanks has they had bigger transport ships, better logistics and no lack of fuel as well as most of the world steel industry at that time making them able to produce them in huge amounts. (Unlike today when all the steel industry moved to china, Korea and funny enough Japan)

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    they didn't have many research slots and what they did went to the naval and carrier aircraft tech tree

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    how many of them did they build?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      About 150 Chi-Nus. Very little compared to USA, but it continued the same 400 medium tanks a year rate as Chi-Has before them.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I do enjoy how the US army advertised the antitank capabilities of a strategically placed mess tin on the turret ring of japanese tanks

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because early in the war they overran colonial defences or rushed defences or lucked out (Philippines, Singapore) and by that point they were now on the defensive and tanks weren't particularly useful. The stuff they were using in China was fine because the Chinese didn't really have many tanks.

    The Japanese realised they needed new tanks in 1940 when they got rekt by Soviet tanks but when the Soviets realised that the Japs weren't going to try shit in the East they went to go save the West and the Japs were happy to let them go. So we go back to where we are now.

    Then in 1942 Japanese Army Staff received word of the new American M4 Sherman tank, which completely outclassed every Japanese tank in production at the time. There were three projects proposed by the Staff to counter the M4; the 47mm Kou, 57mm Otsu, and 75mm Hei designs. They eventually ordered that the model Kou and Otsu merge to become the basis of what would eventually become the Type 4 Chi-To. Meanwhile, the Hei proposal would lead to the development of the Type 5 Chi-Ri. Then, in 1943, they watched USSR vs Germany tank battles and went "Oh we shouldn't do infantry support tanks anymore, we should do anti-armour tanks only" and so they took the Type 5 Chi-Ri chassis as it was the most mature of the three (now two) projects and then started fricking around with it, only to discover that by the time they were ready to produce it, US anti-tank weapons could defeat their 75mm frontal slope, so they went back and made a third version with 120mm, removed the 37mm secondary turret, put in another loader and said 'The 105mm Type 5 will do'. They made one prototype which was good and then the war ended.

    So, Japan was a case of 'We don't need tanks. Okay now we need tanks. Okay now we don't have the materials to make tanks and support our navy. Now we have lost the war."

    tl;dr - no need for tanks to be quality as it wasn't their battle tactic or an issue early on.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Doesn't fricking matter this discussion. The non light tanks were kept in Honshu and if the invasion happened, they wouldn't even get to meet Shermans before a Corsair or Hellcat drops bombs on it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Corsair or Hellcat

      Neither of those were ground support fighters.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's what the USN would have used during the opening stages.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Multi-role

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Found in another thread, Jap tanks in a Chicom parade.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Them some tasty looking strike faces, but to be fair most ww2 tanks had really tasty strike faces on them.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They weren't. The problem is that WW2 is a much longer conflict than just the American involvement. While everyone else was shitting their pants with moronic inter-war tank designs, Japan came up with a competent design that served them well in the 30's. But by the 40's, Japan's economy was spent and they were resource starved, while the Americans could replace the Lee with the Sherman by the boatload.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They were ‘good enough’ for brutalizing poor Asian nations and a crumbling China, which was the pretext for the navy and airforce to hoover up the extra funds and resources. They only started to realized how far behind they fell regarding armored warfare when European Theatre style Allied tanks starting rolling and light their tanks like joints

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Japanese tanks existed to slaughter Chinamen, not to fight anything of note.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Man, tanks are fricking cool.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      are you high right now bro

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Heh, wouldnt you like to know

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Pershing posting commences

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            i love that pic

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Island countries suck at building tanks

    See UK, Japan and even Australia

    Even the Sherman is a tin can compared to German stuff, they were just plentiful in comparison

    But then again there are the froggies with their ugly as frick WW1 and interwar tanks

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If the Tiger II and Panther were so great, how come there were no attempts to improve them post-war? Germany abandoned both concepts for a tank with armor comparable to the Sherman and went all in with the gun and speed.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The only people who used the Tiger II after World War 2 were the French who ended up scrapping them because they were too fricked up in too many ways to fix, and also petty spite.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >See UK
      Their tanks were generally fine except for that one brief moment in Africa when the Germans came up with the KwK 5cm and they couldn't counter with a 6pdr tank in time

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why were Japanese tank so garbage in ww2?
    Chinese didn't have armor, they avoided fighting with soviets and they're hard to ship to islands

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They weren't. They were the best.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ha-Go's unironically saw some of the longest service lifes of any tank in the world. If Thailand keeps it in their active inventory for another year and a half, then it will be 90 years of service. The Type 95 and Type 97 probably saw more post war use than any German, French, or Italian WW2 tank.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Funny part is, there's a few stripped down Ha-Go chassis still active in Japan as civilian tractors, mostly in out of the way places. Reminds me of the Shermans still in use in Canada as logging skidders.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Funny part is, there's a few stripped down Ha-Go chassis still active in Japan as civilian tractors, mostly in out of the way places. Reminds me of the Shermans still in use in Canada as logging skidders.

        They were noted for their high reliability and ease of maintenance. Which makes sense considering the underdeveloped shitholes Japan was fighting in.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The Type 95 and Type 97 probably saw more post war use than any German, French, or Italian WW2 tank.
        That recent video of the Taliban operating a WWII Italian tankette.webm

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *