4088 replies to this topic

[adjutant]

At tier 3, the T82 tank destroyer has a 105mm howitzer with 410 damage, but 53mm avg penetration.

Since Chi-Ha is being put forward as tier 3, I will compare it to the T82's derp gun. I will use the stats provided by OP on the Naval Short 12cm gun. Since Wikipedia states that it was a "short barrel" gun and this gun has "short" in it's name and also because it was a Navy version of the Chi-Ha so I'm just assuming it's the same gun.

The Naval Short 12-cm Gun had a barrel length L/12 (1440mm), whereas the M3 Howitzer had a length L/16 (1680mm).

The 12cm HE round had a muzzle velocity of 290m/s, whereas the M3 Howitzer HE round had a muzzle velocity of 311 m/s.

The 12cm HE round had a shell weight 11800g and 2500g filling, whereas the M3 Howitzer HE round had a shell weight of 18350g and 2180g filling.

Lower shell weight, slower muzzle velocity, and shorter gun barrel tells me that an in-game Naval Short 12cm gun would have less penetration values, worse accuracy, and less range than the 105 mm AT Howitzer M3. However, the bigger filling of the 12cm shell than the M3 shell tells me that it would have slightly more damage. The Naval Short 12cm gun is clearly not the same as the high tier 120mm guns, in fact, in some respects would be worse than the M3 Howitzer used by the T82.

However, its 400+ damage cannot be ignored. Even if it had 1mm penetration, it would do guaranteed 50% dmg so long as the HE shell blew up on the armor.  

[Tupinambis]

adjutant, on Aug 04 2011 - 22:17, said:

At tier 3, the T82 tank destroyer has a 105mm howitzer with 410 damage, but 53mm avg penetration.

Since Chi-Ha is being put forward as tier 3, I will compare it to the T82's derp gun. I will use the stats provided by OP on the Naval Short 12cm gun. Since Wikipedia states that it was a "short barrel" gun and this gun has "short" in it's name and also because it was a Navy version of the Chi-Ha so I'm just assuming it's the same gun.

The Naval Short 12-cm Gun had a barrel length L/12 (1440mm), whereas the M3 Howitzer had a length L/16 (1680mm).

The 12cm HE round had a muzzle velocity of 290m/s, whereas the M3 Howitzer HE round had a muzzle velocity of 311 m/s.

The 12cm HE round had a shell weight 11800g and 2500g filling, whereas the M3 Howitzer HE round had a shell weight of 18350g and 2180g filling.

Lower shell weight, slower muzzle velocity, and shorter gun barrel tells me that an in-game Naval Short 12cm gun would have less penetration values, worse accuracy, and less range than the 105 mm AT Howitzer M3. However, the bigger filling of the 12cm shell than the M3 shell tells me that it would have slightly more damage. The Naval Short 12cm gun is clearly not the same as the high tier 120mm guns, in fact, in some respects would be worse than the M3 Howitzer used by the T82.

However, its 400+ damage cannot be ignored. Even if it had 1mm penetration, it would do guaranteed 50% dmg so long as the HE shell blew up on the armor.  

In this game HE rounds are almost completely dependent on shell weight and are unrelated to shell velocity and barrel length, hence the HE rounds from the German stubby 75 pack the same punch as HE rounds from a Panther. So the Chi-Ha with the 120mm howitzer would probably be more powerful than the T82, but be considerably less accurate. The Chi-Ha would also have the advantage of being reasonably well armored for a Tier 3 though. I think this gun could really shine at Tier 4 or 5, but if the Chi-Ha gets it at tier 3 that implies that there's something else horribly, horribly wrong with the tank

[adjutant]

Tupinambis, on Aug 04 2011 - 22:52, said:

In this game HE rounds are almost completely dependent on shell weight and are unrelated to shell velocity and barrel length, hence the HE rounds from the German stubby 75 pack the same punch as HE rounds from a Panther.

Ah, you're right. I was thinking in terms of AP shells. So a hypothetical Naval Short 12cm gun would indeed have higher penetration (in addition to higher damage) than a 105mm howitzer.

[jambi208]

Great work on the charts.  I can't wait till the new tanks come out, it would be nice to see other nations tanks in the game.

[arisaka38]

cipher12, on Aug 04 2011 - 20:01, said:

Quick question why isn't the 120mm assault gun available to the Chi-Ha? since at least one was produced before the end of the war.


*Edit*
Is this the Navy 12cm?
http://mailer.fsu.ed...ap-120mmSPG.jpg

Yes, that is Navy 12-cm SPG what I placed on Tier7 TD. Unlike your image, it had no gun shield. Here is real photo.
http://infoseek_rip....ktgw/12cm-5.jpg

[adjutant]

cipher12, on Aug 04 2011 - 20:01, said:

Quick question why isn't the 120mm assault gun available to the Chi-Ha? since at least one was produced before the end of the war.


*Edit*
Is this the Navy 12cm?
http://mailer.fsu.ed...ap-120mmSPG.jpg

That's the SPG gun. This is the one used on the Navy Chi-Ha

http://www3.plala.or...kihome/12cm.htm

Notice how it's very short. Notice the profile on the attached image.

Attached Files

•  100768.gif   654bytes   65 downloads

[Redwing6]

Well done...personally, I would rather see a British line before a Japanese line as the Brits had/have a continuinng impact upon  armour development,while the Japanese in WW2 (and now) are...a sideline.  NO offense intended, but they didn't produce anything that could contend with the rather crappy US tanks, and none of their vehicles that were designed past 1939 went past the 1-2 prototype stage.  While their tanks were cerntainly good enough to whip anything the Chinese produced/bought, they suffered heavy casualties against even the 3rd rate tanks the Brits and Indians used at Imphal in 1944, not to mention what the Soviets used on them in KK and later in Mongolia in 1945.

That being said you've done good solid work and research.  Hopefully it will be used down the road.

[SoukouDragon]

rvail136, on Aug 05 2011 - 23:02, said:

Well done...personally, I would rather see a British line before a Japanese line as the Brits had/have a continuinng impact upon  armour development,while the Japanese in WW2 (and now) are...a sideline.

Ya definitely, even though I personally rather have the Japanese tanks first, most people want the British first which I totally agree with.

About the "(and now)" part, Japanese Type 90 is still a solid tank for today's standard.

But the Type 10 has just recently been produced.
http://www.military-.../tanks/tk_x.jpg

[Kazunemaru]

rvail136, on Aug 05 2011 - 23:02, said:

NO offense intended, but they didn't produce anything that could contend with the rather crappy US tanks, and none of their vehicles that were designed past 1939 went past the 1-2 prototype stage.  

That isn't true, there were at least 2 designs that were meant to be a counter to the M4 Sherman (1944) which reached the production phase, one being the Type 3 Chi-Nu, of which ~160 were produced.  It never got to "prove" itself because of growing necessity to defend the mainland from U.S. invasion.  The other design was the Type 1 Chi-He (1941) which was an improvement upon the Type 97 Chi-Ha.  Of the Chi-He, ~170 units were produced and a few may have seen defensive operations during the Battle of Leyte in the Philippines; though designed to cope with the M4, the Type 1 was still inadequate.

Point being there were designs beyond 1939 that made it beyond the prototype stage.

[Tupinambis]

There were also the Ho-Ni tank destroyers deployed to counter the Sherman, though to my knowledge only a few ever saw combat. I can't find any information on how they performed.

[Kazunemaru]

Tupinambis, on Aug 06 2011 - 01:28, said:

There were also the Ho-Ni tank destroyers ... I can't find any information on how they performed.

Most were kept on the Mainland for the same reason as the others, but a few of the Type 1 Ho-Ni I were deployed to the Battle of the Philippines in 1944, with "limited success".

[Redwing6]

Kazunemaru, on Aug 06 2011 - 01:11, said:

That isn't true, there were at least 2 designs that were meant to be a counter to the M4 Sherman (1944) which reached the production phase, one being the Type 3 Chi-Nu, of which ~160 were produced.  It never got to "prove" itself because of growing necessity to defend the mainland from U.S. invasion.  The other design was the Type 1 Chi-He (1941) which was an improvement upon the Type 97 Chi-Ha.  Of the Chi-He, ~170 units were produced and a few may have seen defensive operations during the Battle of Leyte in the Philippines; though designed to cope with the M4, the Type 1 was still inadequate.

Point being there were designs beyond 1939 that made it beyond the prototype stage.

"Met with limited success."  

That's generally a uphemism that they were not performing as predicted, or underperforming...but any way...the Type 10 is an awesome looking tank.  Additionally, the SoKo's are producing a home developed derivative of the M1A2 that is supposed to be very good as well.  But I stand corrected on the Japanese current developements.  I stand by my comments on their WW2 designs...they were obsolescent at the start of the war, and only grew more so as the war continued.  The fact that they produced 160 or so tanks to counter the M4 line, but only used very limited numbers in actual combat is telling...

Great pic btw.

Thanks for the solid research and scholarship.

Rich Vail
Pikesville, Maryland

[MrTankFan]

Well, this is only tangentially related, but I thought I'd suggest it since it's likely we won't see Japanese tanks in-game for quite a while. Apparently the tier 5 lights will be added to all three existing trees next patch (6.7), including the American M24 Chaffee. It's been mentioned in this thread that Chaffees were used by the Japanese army post-WWII, so perhaps someone who's good a skinning could produce a JGSDF skin for the M24. It'd be pretty neat, and I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to get a "standard" JGSDF paint job. Just get the right shade of green and change the decals from white stars to the Japanese "meatball" flag/symbol. (I'm not sure about the proper name for the flag, it's the one with the red "sun" on a white rectangle background.)

[LGear]

MrTankFan, on Aug 06 2011 - 17:32, said:

(I'm not sure about the proper name for the flag, it's the one with the red "sun" on a white rectangle background.)

That'd be the "Nisshoki" (sun-mark flag), aka the "Hinomaru" (sun disc).

http://www.openclipa...panese_Flag.png

[Tupinambis]

I'm also confused about the "limited success" of the Type 1. Its sole purpose of existence was to destroy Sherman tanks. If it didn't destroy any, it would have been "unsuccessful". So, it must have done SOMETHING. I really wish there was an after-action report on this thing floating around somewhere.

[teamSG1]

Eager to see what the devs will do with the Japanese line. Its far off though, so we have a big wait.

[Kazunemaru]

Perhaps it doesn't come up often, but I'm pretty sure there was a tank destroyer design concept using the Type 5 Chi-Ri's chasis; the Ho-Ri.  It was intended to mount a 105mm instead of the 75mm, most likely inspired by the Jagd-series of Germany.

[Tupinambis]

Oh, I just realized something about the Ho-Ri series on this tank tree.
They both seem a tad, undergunned to me. 100mm at Tier 8 and 120 and Tier 9 respectively.
Here's my recommendation:
Put the 120mm gun on the Ho-Ri 1.
Slap the 150mm Type 5 AA gun on the Ho-Ri II
http://en.wikipedia...._5_15_cm_AA_Gun
Certainly it LOOKS like it could have some serious AP power.

[arisaka38]

Tupinambis, on Aug 06 2011 - 20:00, said:

I'm also confused about the "limited success" of the Type 1. Its sole purpose of existence was to destroy Sherman tanks. If it didn't destroy any, it would have been "unsuccessful". So, it must have done SOMETHING. I really wish there was an after-action report on this thing floating around somewhere.

Type 1's 7.5cm Type 90 field gun can penetrate SHerman's frontal armor form 1500m if it hit 90 degree. But it seems improbable in real action.
Japanese tank manul "Sensya-YoHo(Tank Usage)" says that when shooting Shermal's frontal armor, it must shoot from closer than 600m. In action, Lingayen Gulf at Luzon island in the Philippines, Type 1 destroyed some Shermans from 500m distance, by ambush tactics.

[MrTankFan]

Tupinambis, on Aug 06 2011 - 22:29, said:

Oh, I just realized something about the Ho-Ri series on this tank tree.
They both seem a tad, undergunned to me. 100mm at Tier 8 and 120 and Tier 9 respectively.
Here's my recommendation:
Put the 120mm gun on the Ho-Ri 1.
Slap the 150mm Type 5 AA gun on the Ho-Ri II
http://en.wikipedia...._5_15_cm_AA_Gun
Certainly it LOOKS like it could have some serious AP power.

You do have a point, a TD with a weak gun doesn't have much going for it. Then again, the second tier 9 Russian TD, the SU-122-54, might very well have a 122mm gun as its top one. Also, I'm sure the stats on the 120mm could be tweaked to make it competitive. Even if the guns were put in as-shown the Ho-Ri I/II could be compensated with good mobility, accuracy, fire rate, aim time, and/or camo values.

Still, I'm sure that if it was needed for balance purposes the 150mm you mention would doubtlessly make a monster AT gun. After all, AA guns fire shells up, and to get as far up as possible the bullet has to go as fast as possible. Coincidentally, getting a bullet to go very fast also gives it excellent armour penetration. Thus, AA guns often made excellent AT guns with the right modifications during WWII, something the Germans discovered with their infamous 88mm.