On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:52:38 +1000 "Alan E Brain"<aebrain@webone.com.au>
writes:
> Tremble in fear, Chi-ha, tremble in fear...
Dear diary,
Avoid playing Japanes tanker in WW2 games. Ever. Play Poles or Italians if you
must but never Japanese... Japanese Infantry, yes; Japanese Naval Air, sure;
Japanese Navy, always; Japanese Army Air Maybe. Japanese armor, never.
Although a scenario involving lots of Chi-ha versus some Suart M3's
might be... different.
So, was it a inherently bad design originally or was it a case of a tank used
in the wrong role?
Gracias,
> Dear diary,
They're not bad if the enemy has no tanks or anti-tank weapons. Except
for the
tankettes - often their armour won't stop a .303 at short range. Modern
off-road
vehicles have thicker panelling in places, based on the one I've seen in the
Australian War Memorial. Which is rather smaller than my Daihatsu Charade.
> Although a scenario involving lots of Chi-ha versus some Stuart M3's
If they're standard Ch-Ha's, they have the problem that they can't
actually hurt a Stuart except by a) ramming or b) getting lucky with a machine
gun. A Shinhoto Ch Ha would be a fair fight, if they're M3 Stuarts not M5s.
Apart from the M3's speed advantage.
> So, was it a inherently bad design originally or was it a case of a
For a 1937 tank, it was excellent. Its reliability was good even by 1944
standards, as was its range. In 1937, when most tanks were armed with a
machine gun, or
a 1lb 37mm non-anti-tank weapon, the 6lb non-anti-tank 57mm was King.
The petrol (gasoline) engine vs a diesel in combat was only a minor
disadvantage.
But when they ran up against such modern tanks as the Russian T-26B with
its 45mm AT gun in 1939, they were completely outclassed. Hence the upgrade to
Shinhoto
Chi Ha, which was certainly comparable to a T-26B, or a 1939 model Pz
IIIB with a 37mm gun.
What happened in 1945 was that the Kwantung army had to use them against
T34/85s
> At 12:19 PM +1000 4/23/02, Alan E Brain wrote:
Geeze. The the Boyes would have made short work of one. In one side out the
back....
If it weren't for the massively inflexible and dunderheaded British tactics on
the roads leading to Singapore, they'd have never gotten very far.
From: "Ryan Gill" <rmgill@mindspring.com>
> >Modern off-road
2" mortars and Vickers MGs did quite well. Few of the Japanese tanks got very
far.
> If it weren't for the massively inflexible and dunderheaded British
Singapore is still fairly painful for any Australian to discuss in an
objective fashion. Some troops - British, Indian and Australian -
fought very well. But most - British, Indian and Australian - didn't.
Percieval's performance was less than stellar*, but the basic problem
Quoting Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@webone.com.au>:
> Singapore is still fairly painful for any Australian to discuss in an
I have it on reasonably good authority that the Brits spent quite a lot of
their time getting really, really, really good at Mah-Jong. Certainly my
grandfather was pretty good at it and that's where he claimed he learned...