Type 97 Chi-Ha

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Question on Japanese Type 97 Chi-Ha tank

In game we have only one type 97 tank. while external sources mention two guns:
- earlier production with 57mm short barrel, low velocity, infantry support gun
- late production with 47mm AT gun

Production according to wikipedia is:

Type 97 tank[11] (57 mm gun):
1938: 110
1939: 202
1940: 315
1941: 507
1942: 28
Total: 1,162

Type 97-Kai tank[11] (47 mm gun):
1942: 503
1943: 427
Total: 930

Would it be fair to say that the game is assuming all Type 97 as late version, 47mm AT platforms?

[wdolson]

Some versions are combined together when actual performance differences were minimal. I don't know much about Japanese guns, so I can't say specifically. Less likely, but still possible is that there was something overlooked.

Bill

[spence]

It would seem that the larger explosive charge in the 57 mm gun would improve its AT ability somewhat to perhaps the same ANTI-ARMOR value of the 47mm AT but the ANTI-SOFT ability of the 47mm gun couldn't ever compare favorably to the 57mm gun since it had a smaller charge to begin with.

IJA tanks were not too impressive in all cases although they could do a heck of a job terrorizing unarmed Chinese peasants.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Japanese tanks were actually good [;)] considering designs were almost a decade old and still were capable to hold against early war tanks (Stuarts)

And definitively it looks like there is some abstraction because all early tanks (Types 89, 95, 97, 98) had a A/Arm value of 50 while, of course, the calibers of these models go from 37mm to 47mm and 57mm

[spence]

Practically perfect for 1931.

[crsutton]

In game terms the Japanese tank units rule for the first year of the war. But 1943 brings excellent inherent AT values for every Allied squad but the Chinese. Even a vanilla infantry brigade can take on Japanese tanks after that and Allied tank units once upgraded to medium tanks just slaughter them.

[BlackhorseToo]

ORIGINAL: spence

It would seem that the larger explosive charge in the 57 mm gun would improve its AT ability somewhat to perhaps the same ANTI-ARMOR value of the 47mm AT but the ANTI-SOFT ability of the 47mm gun couldn't ever compare favorably to the 57mm gun since it had a smaller charge to begin with.

IJA tanks were not too impressive in all cases although they could do a heck of a job terrorizing unarmed Chinese peasants.

The US had a different problem with the anti-soft effect of their anti-tank guns. The 37mm AT gun, equipped with HE and canister rounds, was widely used as an infantry support weapon in the Pacific. With the invasion of North Africa in November, 1942, the 37mm AT gun became instantly obsolete in the ETO, and was rapidly replaced by the 57mm AT gun. But no HE or canister rounds were produced for the 57mm gun until 1945, so the 37mm AT gun was a more effective anti-infantry weapon until nearly the end of the war.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: BlackhorseToo

ORIGINAL: spence

It would seem that the larger explosive charge in the 57 mm gun would improve its AT ability somewhat to perhaps the same ANTI-ARMOR value of the 47mm AT but the ANTI-SOFT ability of the 47mm gun couldn't ever compare favorably to the 57mm gun since it had a smaller charge to begin with.

IJA tanks were not too impressive in all cases although they could do a heck of a job terrorizing unarmed Chinese peasants.

The US had a different problem with the anti-soft effect of their anti-tank guns. The 37mm AT gun, equipped with HE and canister rounds, was widely used as an infantry support weapon in the Pacific. With the invasion of North Africa in November, 1942, the 37mm AT gun became instantly obsolete in the ETO, and was rapidly replaced by the 57mm AT gun. But no HE or canister rounds were produced for the 57mm gun until 1945, so the 37mm AT gun was a more effective anti-infantry weapon until nearly the end of the war.

Well, the 37mm remained an excellent support weapon in the Pacific due to its size and comparative light weight more than anything else. I just doubt the 57mm would have been as versatile even with canister. It is ironic that many GIs felt that the M1 carbine was a better weapon for Pacific combat than the Garand due to it light weight and short length (important when fighting in jungle or bush) but the majority of the carbines were sent to Europe and very few made it to the Pacific-especially in the early years.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

And at the end, even the 6pdr was not good enough against the next generation of German tanks.

A mix of 37mms + bazookas + big, non infantry guns like 17pdrs would had being better... of course they didn't have a crystal ball