For me at least, this was such an eye opening vid! Had NO idea Japan was working on such an array of different tracked vehicles OR that they didn't only have the Type 95 fielded during the war. MOST EXCELLANT!
The Americans though the same when they saw those tanks most never knew existed, with those long 75's dug into the side of the mountains, that they didn't have to fight....
+John Doe well with Britain they had reasons to build tanks since they were fighting and moving into Europe with the Americans and fighting in the desserts against the dessert rats they needed heavy armoury and tanks to support them whether it be the covanter Cromwell or Churchill, BTW I just noticed how many British tanks start with C lol
I do like that you feature the tanks we never hear about. Nice work. I think the Japanese tanks were primarily for infantry support. Very rarely were the Japanese tanks employed en mass. A good anti-tank rifle shell would go clean through their 6 inch armor & out the other side, like hot steel through butter. One tip: Footage is always better than still photos.
The geography of a nation reflects heavily on the priority certain weapon systems receive. In common with other island states (like GB), the Japanese never afforded the tanks any particular priority where resources and tactics were concerned. As a result, the designs reflected the lack of funding and interest in land warfare systems. What surprises me is the incredible number of different types developed (and built in numbers), by such small economy. Certainly it would have been better to concentrate on a few, well-tried and robust types. I've never heard of many of these tanks/tankettes before. Thanks for the upload.....
Not really they where fighting China and China had no tanks. Australia had very few, planes could take those few out and they thought America had no stomach for a fight.
Wrong, the japanese actually did have tactics for their use of their tanks. One of those tactics consisted in digging a tench for their tanks with a huge angle of the trench floor, with the purpouse that the tanks will be hidding with an elevated terrain giving an elevation to the front of the tank allowing that only the cannon and the shooter visor pop out above the trench. That's why the japanese tanks cannon were designed to have a very low deegree of rotation. And about that geographic bullshit of design. The design of war machines have nothing to do with where they are made. The reason japanese tanks look like that is because Japan was never a country with a huge experience in modern wars. Previous to WW2, when Japan was designing in oder to make tanks for their army, they used the information they had in their previous moder wars for that, wich were the first Russian-Japanese war they had, and the experiwnce they gained in WW1, wich were very very old wars. And that's why those tanks looks like that. They were designed using the little experiwnce of battle the japanese had previous to WW2; those tanks woild have been impressives for WW1 standards, but for WW2, all those technology standars were obsolete and changed for more modern standards.
Japanese tank design was influenced, inter alia, by the need to conserve resources and easy ship-born transportability. What's surprising is how well Japanese medium tanks from the '30's were armed in comparison with European models of the same era.
There sure are a lot of armchair warriors here who's knowledge of military history was forged from video games and movies. Too many sarcastic self proclaimed "experts" here to carry on intelligent dialogue.
Good vid. I'm currently researching Japanese tanks and never realized how many variants they had. Some of their heavy tanks look very interesting. We have to realize too that almost all tanks were small prior to WWII. Look at some of the US and German pre-1940 tanks.
Interesting. Most of the more modern looking stuff seems to sport Pzkw III/IV chassis with cobbled on KV 1 turret. The amphibious units are something else. Thanks!
It was doomed from Pearl harbor don't forget we had an Atlantic fleet and they where not really needed in the Atlantic at the time.Besides England could have taken on the small German fleet and the Italian fleet who's fleet would have been no good in the Atlantic as it was designed to fight in the Med. so thair ships had a shorter range not good for in the Atlantic where they would need to travel long distances.
I love the Type I Che-He Medium standing at attention at 7:45 with their katanas. My best guess was that the katanas had three probable functions: 1. Carrying swords provided a connection to Bushido and the Samurai. 2. Swords might have been part of the uniform. 3. Carrying swords might have promoted an "esprit de corps" and a spirit of aggression. If anyone knows the actual reason behind why these men were carrying katanas as sidearms, please let me know.
WOW! Spectacular! I had no idea. There just isn,t much mention of this stuff,anywhere,good on you! Torpedos on a tank,what were they smoking,to come up with that? Think what a T-34/85 would have done to any of those designs.And yet, 25 years later,Honda bikes and Toyota cars had Detroit sweating. Go figure. Welldone,sir.PGM?
Ryan Dupre I'm a bit hyped. I hope they'll add the amphibious ones and they'll float properly. It'd be fun to drive around, probably not so fun to fight in unless they give almost all super low battle rating. Seriously they'd have problems in arcade battles against StuG A & such that are currently dominating 1.3 BR
+ZnenTitan Nice noticing. That was what I was thinking when I was looking at the front end of a lot of those tanks. Their glacis has a serious slope in it that would have increased the effectiveness of the otherwise thin armor. Their turrets just seem to be really robust and boxy. I wonder if they did that for increased elevation and depression, or if they just look oversized because the tanks, for the most part, were pretty small.
Thank you, some look like the Soviet T-26 turret and chassis, seen some light tank model before but I never know the Japanese had SPG/Heavy tanks type:) For the battle of Bukit Chandu!!!!!
Compared to what was being produced and experimented within Europe and the cash starved joke tank programme in the US, Japan was leaps and bound ahead during the 1930's in armour and armaments. It's just that they produced so many of these 1930's tanks that they served long past their use by date. Armour wise, Japanese tanks carried more than the average of 1930's light tanks and double that of 1930's medium tanks. Armament wise they outgunned 90% of the French tanks used in 1940. In 1939 87 out of the 127 tanks in the US Army were crappy French FT-17 tanks. The rest were collections of prototypes, congress neutered cavalry tanks and WW1 Anglo-American Mark.VIII. heavy tanks plus 2 steam tanks. When offered decent tank prototypes by J Walter Christee, the US Government turned them down. The rest of the world didn't and the US had to play catch up during WW2. The two worst tank design nations in WW2 turned out to be Italy and France, the latter couldn't even be bothered to fit tank guns that could penetrate German panzers or anything larger than a 1 man turret. France even managed to produce a tank that was faster in reverse (AMX-40). If you look at what the rest of the world was doing with tank development in the 1930's, Japan sits in 3rd place behind Britain (2nd) and Russian (1st).
Andy Reid Horribly incorrect. The Germans had the best tanks in the world since 1935 with the panzer II. That could shred Japanese ranks to pieces. And the majority of US tanks in 1939 were Stuart’s, not Renault’s,
The Char-B had more then enough fire power to destroy the relativly light german tanks and the Somua S35 was also easily able to take on a german tank of the time. The heaviest tank the germans had was the Panzer IV, which at the time wasnt equipped for tank vs. tank combat, but infantry support. That leaves us with only the Panzer III. In comparison the French had several tanks, that were more heavily armed and armored. The french tank design was flawed, due to a missleading mindset during the design phase, but saying that french tanks couldnt penetrate a german tank is just wrong.
More than impressive!Amazing.Like Russia,Germany and USA together.Japan saved it for the last battle in Japan soil to destroying land invasion.Without of Nuclear bomb Japan was never occupied.My greetings and respect from Serbia.Tenno Heika Banzai!
seraphil1 Nice comment right on the mark thank you. I am sure if you asked any veteran any tank no matter what the design, is an unwelcome sight when you are lightly armed and in squad/platoon formation.
Thanks for sharing. A lot of work must have been done in compiling this video. I agree with some friends here that the shortage of material had hindered Japanese tank development to a great extent. These tanks worked more than well when Japan invaded its Asian neighbors comprising mostly harmless farmers. Japanese easy victory in late 1930s further instilled among the majority of Japanese the idea of Japan's invincibility that, like Hitler's idea about Junker 87, further development in armament would be a waste of resources if total victory was only a mater of a few more months away. In Japanese Army's philosophy, tanks and artilleries were tools for laying siege and were of less importance to army's aviation corps. Japanese early gains were mostly Pacific islands and jungles, except in China, where tanks would be difficult to operate. That was one more reason that tanks were sidelined. Perhaps the most critical reason for ineffective development in tanks was samurai's arrogance that the final blow, thus lead to victory, upon enemy should be dealt by a charging army officer waiving his sword with his face clearly visible to his peer, rather than hiding disgracefully behind a metal hull, as a true way to honor his family clan's name. The same mindset also applied to Japanese Navy's use of submarines. But one thing still not explained: if Japan were to eventually invade Australia, where main battle tanks would be desperately needed in considerable amount, and if they do made it there, then how did they plan to keep the Downunder?
Every one in the comments who's asking about the O-I tank seen in World of Tanks needs to consider that there are no photographs remaining of the tank. Also, most of the Tanks in WoT are either made up or existed only in Blueprints...
Man i wish type 4 and 5 are there Type 4 and 5 are mobile fortress wich can broke through enemy fortification /defense line Its also called bunker.....havent they documented the type 4 and 5?they are not just blue prints
Nice work and thanks for posting. Some of the AFVs within were previously unknown to me, while others are shown in very difficult to locate photos. I've read that Popular Science issue with the R/C Tank article; it was fun to see it here. Especially interesting were the AA Tanks, about which little is available elsewhere.
It was an experimental tank which never went to mass production and it is believed one was built for trials in Manchuria, but no photos from then exist besides that it was a massive turd that could barely keep pace with infantry and wasn't really needed.
I believe that the Japanese would have more efficient in tank combat if they were not short on valuable materials, considering their most produced (and most effective tank) had about 1,700 developed during the war, and they were very short on oil and other fuels to power tanks.
As American couldn’t design over 30m wide battle ship because of the Panama Canal, Japanese couldn’t design over 20tons tank because of maximum load of harbor facilities.
Could anyone dig up more on that Type 97 Kaisho mod? Looks really awesome but I'm unable to follow the forum link in the description or find any other info on it.
狂ミ 康太 Kurumi Kouta and it also one and the imperial japan first Main Battle Tanks. well it could be one of the first Main Battle Tanks in WWII alone with the Centurion of the British.
Thanks for posting this very interesting and sometime bewildering list of tanks. Really, a glider tank? Some of these types really show the desperation of the Japanese army from 1943 onwards.
I am suprised japan did so much with such limited weaponry. A few of the designs look like they might have been useful, especially the mobile guns. But over all thin armor, small turrets, low speed, and for the most part guns that did not look as though they were ever intended for tank-to-tank combat.
Countdown70s at the start of the war most tanks were very ight and intended to support infantry....the Japanese didn't get away from that model. to be honest f your up against infantry ANY armored vehicle is a dangerous weapon. as long as it can bounce a bullet or slow one down nine times out of ten...which is not hard against an infantry rifle.
Smiley Face Not with rifles.. I think that's why someone invented the Molotov cocktail. an empty glass bottle, a bit of gasoline, or kerosene and a rag...instant anti tank grenade....unfortunately it's range is limited, and infantry men tend to shoot people trying to set tanks on fire....repeatedly, with murderous intent.
@Hannibal EnemyofRome Actually all countries of WW2 used WW1 weaponry at any point. Also you should know, any tank battles fought in the pacific were practically only between M5 Stuart and Chi-Ha. The terrain in the pacific only really allowed light tanks to be of any use, it was a rare case USN could use shermans.
Rook, only in the early campaigns did the U.S. use the Stuart. By the Tarawa campaign and beyond, the Marine and Army tank battalions were equipped with M4A2 Shermans and Sherman Flame tanks. The Stuart's were too lightly armed to be much use against bunkers.
+n_ yo41 To all English speakers I saved you some time and translated it for you. Actually Though some more , but it 's what the do almost has finished in the design or made one prototype . . . Hey it was too stray ...
japan didn't have sufficient manufacturing capability in ww2, even if they had a good tank design they wouldn't have been able to build it in sufficient numbers and then to transport them to the various islands they occupied would have been a problem and supplying the tanks with fuel and ammunition would have been difficult for them
none of them were produced and the only O-I prototype built in mild steel was never photographed and was scrapped later on in the war, thats why the author cant even put them in. also O-Ni and O-Ho dont exist, the desgin of O-Ho is the O-I 120, the prototype built was the O-I 100
@@bxndxlx4150 For type 4/5 they were little information about their existence, the closest thing was a photograph about a bunker turret carrying the 14cm naval gun. its unknown whether did the type 4/5 exist to be a mobile platform for it or were they canceled then the gun placed on the bunker. but its confirmed that its in some way an extension of the O-I project. the type 5 is simply an upgraded version of the type 4 to improve its mobility by reducing the engine volume and weight.
There should have been a decent remote-control model of a Japanese tank, an 89 or 95 or 97,, in 1/30 scale or bigger, but I guess maybe Japanese WW2 machines are a sore point in China for same reasons as Russian kit-makers like Novo refused to make kits of WW2 Axis machines.. Alternatively should be RCs of British desert tanks like Matilda or Mk III Cruiser/Crusader
I notice all the detractors against Japanese armor of this time period are incapable of mentioning any actual factual details about tanks like the Type 95 or Type 97 Shinhoto, but are fully capable of rambling off American rhetoric and second-hand comments about .50 BMG being able to shoot through 25mm of steel(the Type 97's primary armor thickness) at any realistic combat range. These also seem to be the same people who ramble about M4 Sherman ronsons/tommy cookers, a 5-to-1 odds needed for M4s to kill a Panther or Tiger, and how the Germans would have destroyed us if they could have mass-produced the Maus. Also, there is a big difference between a tank being obsolete against the enemy it faces, and simply being bad. The Type 95 was already five years old by the time the US M3 Stuart was first rolled out, and in the first tank vs. tank combat the US experienced, the Type 95 sent the M3 Stuart running, and in future engagements fought near-equally against the newer tank. Of course, being a light tank designed for infantry support in jungles and mountains, it would falter against newer medium tank designs(M3 Lee, M4) that had already gone through the anti-tank teething process in Europe and Africa, let alone dedicated tank destroyers like the M10 and M18. On top of all of that? The US armor divisions outnumbered the Japanese tanks by a ridiculous amount. In any one battle, you may have 10 Type 95s and 5 Type 97s facing dozens of M4s. Tanks like the Chi-Nu, Chi-To, and the various tank destroyer projects would have been dangerous threats to the US armor. The Type 1 Ho-Ni I was produced in 1942 and was capable of defeating Shermans with it's 75mm gun. However, it was produced in very limited amounts, and further developments(which led as far as the Ho-Ri, a design reminiscent of the German Elefant with a 105mm gun that only had a wooden mock-up made by the war's end) were kept to the home islands in preparation for an invasion that never came. All for the best, really.
I would be interested in where the Stuarts ran. Sorry it is a fact no Japanese tank was equal to the Sherman. I see you couldn't wait to get your shot in about the Panther and Tiger. The Sherman was never designed to fight the Mk-4,5,6. It was designed and dominated the Mk 3's in North Africa. I wonder if the British win at El Alamein with out the Sherman. Interesting thought. I can't understand why people are so quick to hate on American stuff. The Japanese were actually dominated. They never made an Armored vehicle that was any good. In fact they considered it a little cowardly to hide in a tank. Their hearts just weren't in to tank design. Really if you look at all of their ground weapons, not too impressive. They produced the worst small arms by far of the Second World War. The poor old Sherman never gets any respect you call it names like it had nothing to do with winning the Second World War. I seem to have read somewhere that the winning team was using the Sherman. Maybe I missed something. If you tell me Bataan was where they ran I may throw up. That means you have no idea of the Doctrinal employment of tanks in the US Army in 1941. If you say Singapore then you are wrong. You mention tanks that were prepared for our invasion of main land Japan. We would have probably used a lot of Pershings. A much superior vehicle to every other tank on earth save possibly, a matter of who saw who first, the Panzer MK 6,7.
akgeronimo501 America's first armoured engagement ended with one stuart being knocked out by Type 95 Ha Go tanks and four retreating from the battlefield. The Japanese made many good armoured vehicles. The Chi Nu, Chi To and Chi Ri were excellent examples. The Shinhoto Chi Ha could penetrate a Sherman frontally at ranges of 200m~500m depending upon what kind of ammo it was using.
j chilton I don't know who told you that. None of the Japanese armored vehicles were any good. Japanese ground armament was bad all of it. It is an island nation and was very naval oriented.
akgeronimo501 I don't know who told you your information, but I have spent years studying Imperial Japanese tanks. The Type 1 47mm gun had the following penetration: Type 1 47mm APHE 45mm at 1,500m (Face hardened non carburized) / 20mm (Face hardened carburized) 50mm at 1,000m (Face hardened non carburized) / 30mm (Face hardened carburized) 500m in 65mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 40mm (Face hardened carburized) 200m in 65mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 50mm (Face hardened carburized) Type 1 47mm Tokko Kou 1,500m in 43mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 20mm (Face hardened carburized) 1,000m in 62mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 37mm (Face hardened carburized) 500m in 76mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 52mm (Face hardened carburized) 200m in 85mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 62mm (Face hardened carburized) Type 1 47mm Tokko Otsu 1,500m in 51mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 24mm (Face hardened carburized) 1,000m in 74mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 44mm (Face hardened carburized) 500m in 91mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 62mm (Face hardened carburized) 200m in 103mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 74mm (Face hardened carburized) 100m in 121mm (unknown/ Homogenized armour) All of the instances that cite Face Hardened non-carburized are also the penetrations of homogenized armour. Japanese Vehicles were good. The Chi Ha, designed in 1939 had a maximum armour thickness of 28mm on its hull and 50mm on its gun mantlet. The Chi He (1941) had 50mm on its hull and 50mm on its turret, the Chi Nu (1943~44) had 50mm of armour on its hull and 75mm on its turret. The Chi To had 75mm of armour on its front and its turret and a top speed of 31 mp/h. The Chi Ri had the same armour, but with a more powerful armament. Would you like to know more?
The important figure is actually the real production runs and unit delivery. How many of each type were actually deployed and transported to the battlefield, with their fuel and ammunition? I would suspect that for most types that figure was in the single or double digits. The US produced over 50 thousand M4's. Sure, the M4 Sherman was inferior to the latest German tanks even in 1943, and really should have been supplemented by a genuine heavy for the European theater (there is an argument that transport space was prohibitive) but the basic M4 was handily superior to practically anything the Japanese possessed. More importantly, US infantry, Army or Marine, was well-equipped with anti-tank weapons. Even the 37-mm, long dismissed as a doorknocker in Europe, was capable of penetrating nearly any Japanese armoured vehicle at ranges up to 250 yards, and the 57-mm, also obsolete by 1944, was equal to any of them - and this does not count the bazooka, commonly found in any US platoon HQ.. Many as the Japanese types were, they were hardly of any importance at all in the Pacific war, although they were useful and effective against Chinese troops, who were essentially peasants hastily armed with basic rifles. For the western allies, Japanese armor was rarely encountered, and when it was, it was rapidly destroyed by better weapons in the hands of good combat troops. The exception, as usual, was the brief Malayan campaign of Dec 1941 to February 1942, when the British had not deployed any tanks or anti-tank weapons at all, on the charming but idiotic theory that Malaya was unsuitable for tanks, and that therefore the Japanese wouldn't use them. The limited numbers of Japanese tanks therefore ran riot. There was nothing - literally nothing - to stop them.
Main thing is that a lot of the heavier tanks and tank destroyers were held back in mainland Japan for an anticipated mainland invasion. Ofc that never happened, so the majority of those tanks never even fired a shell outside of training and testing.
My dad a WW2 Navy man said that he thought that the Japanese had no idea what they would be up against in tank battles. The Chinese didn't have any tanks worth talking about they mainly had ww1 obsolete tanks that other countries had thrown away or sold. So the Japanese only had here say information about the American tanks and After ww2 started they got reports from the Germans about American tanks! So when it came time to face American tanks they had to build some bigger ones but were unable to make many because we cut off their steel supplies!!!
At first their mind to using tanks against soliders groups, they ignored using tanks as independence groups,that high of tanks too dangerous for tanks, increasing widths is more safe, they were not using curves surface
Even Australian tanks could compete with Japanese tanks, and that's disturbingly bad. The Eastern theatre just never had impetus to build heavy armour. There just wasn't the open plains and therefore competition leading to heavier and heavier tanks. In fact a lot of the east favoured small, light, highly mobile forces.
Thanks a lot for doing this, ive been interested in the Japanese armored forces for awhile now and its good to see that others are too
im working on a belgian tanks of WW2 video
ya same here, probably a lot of French models, even the Italians and Poles used French tech probably lots of domestic tankettes though
dont you mean, "tanks a lot"
For me at least, this was such an eye opening vid! Had NO idea Japan was working on such an array of different tracked vehicles OR that they didn't only have the Type 95 fielded during the war.
MOST EXCELLANT!
The Americans though the same when they saw those tanks most never knew existed, with those long 75's dug into the side of the mountains, that they didn't have to fight....
Japan used most of their steel for the Navy, heavy tanks weren't as important.
tanks for them wasn't that important because they were defending islands, so to them, it wasn't worth moving tanks there to defend anyways
Youcan't .Beserious same as Britain in a way,
Mark Masterson True and both island nations
That's true, but that also their biggest mistakes. Land forces is essential for invading China and defending Soviet.
+John Doe well with Britain they had reasons to build tanks since they were fighting and moving into Europe with the Americans and fighting in the desserts against the dessert rats they needed heavy armoury and tanks to support them whether it be the covanter Cromwell or Churchill, BTW I just noticed how many British tanks start with C lol
Type 5 chi-ri was a medium tank, the designation "chi" was used only for medium tanks
I do like that you feature the tanks we never hear about. Nice work. I think the Japanese tanks were primarily for infantry support. Very rarely were the Japanese tanks employed en mass. A good anti-tank rifle shell would go clean through their 6 inch armor & out the other side, like hot steel through butter. One tip: Footage is always better than still photos.
Nice job on this video thanks. Not much out there on the Japanese tanks. I did not know that they had this many types. Thanks again great job
The geography of a nation reflects heavily on the priority certain weapon systems receive.
In common with other island states (like GB), the Japanese never afforded the tanks any particular priority where resources and tactics were concerned.
As a result, the designs reflected the lack of funding and interest in land warfare systems.
What surprises me is the incredible number of different types developed (and built in numbers), by such small economy. Certainly it would have been better to concentrate on a few, well-tried and robust types.
I've never heard of many of these tanks/tankettes before.
Thanks for the upload.....
your welcome
Not really they where fighting China and China had no tanks. Australia had very few, planes could take those few out and they thought America had no stomach for a fight.
Wrong, the japanese actually did have tactics for their use of their tanks. One of those tactics consisted in digging a tench for their tanks with a huge angle of the trench floor, with the purpouse that the tanks will be hidding with an elevated terrain giving an elevation to the front of the tank allowing that only the cannon and the shooter visor pop out above the trench. That's why the japanese tanks cannon were designed to have a very low deegree of rotation.
And about that geographic bullshit of design. The design of war machines have nothing to do with where they are made. The reason japanese tanks look like that is because Japan was never a country with a huge experience in modern wars. Previous to WW2, when Japan was designing in oder to make tanks for their army, they used the information they had in their previous moder wars for that, wich were the first Russian-Japanese war they had, and the experiwnce they gained in WW1, wich were very very old wars. And that's why those tanks looks like that. They were designed using the little experiwnce of battle the japanese had previous to WW2; those tanks woild have been impressives for WW1 standards, but for WW2, all those technology standars were obsolete and changed for more modern standards.
Capsy Dash Soviets and Germans did the same thing, your point??
Best display/Coverage of Japanese Armor I have ever seen! Thank You! Extremely well done!!! Oohraah!!!
God damn, I keep forgetting the comments section for ww2 videos is basically cancer for intelligence.
Yes haha, i wonder if people like us are the stupid ones for expecting decency :D
Michael Gäfgen that is entirely possible haha
Cool picture btw is that a cat in the mouth oft the Hermelin ?
Michael Gäfgen Lol I had to look up Hermelin to know what you meant :P
I'm not really sure what it is though.
+ralroost einsnulldrei Thanks for adding to it.
Nothing inspires a confident sense of invulnerability like going to war in a Nissan Micra with tracks.
Someone give me a phone. I need to call up wargaming and tell them to add the damn Type 89 already so I can finish my collection.
it may take them a will to respond :)
jmantime Well, they are russian...
xXInfXx they gonna be like *screw it,they are fascist* Next!
Good for you. A full selection of Crapanese tanks.
stephentsang2000 I don't collect Japanese tanks. I just need the one.
120mm wow that's fascinating !
Japanese tank design was influenced, inter alia, by the need to conserve resources and easy ship-born transportability. What's surprising is how well Japanese medium tanks from the '30's were armed in comparison with European models of the same era.
There sure are a lot of armchair warriors here who's knowledge of military history was forged from video games and movies. Too many sarcastic self proclaimed "experts" here to carry on intelligent dialogue.
Japan is an island nation so any vehicle was supposed to be transported to a battlefield. Therefore they always needed light weighted vehicles.
@@VusalMusayev-s9w This guy doesnt give a fuck, do you realise this
Vusal Musayev Lmao did you accidently reply on the wrong comment?
Thanks for posting! I didn't know that the Japanese had tank-hunters or SPG's. I wish there was a good Japanese tank film.
That last "tank", the radio operated "tank" with a huge torpedo as its weapon are also know as "land torpedo", they are not very common to see.
Good vid. I'm currently researching Japanese tanks and never realized how many variants they had. Some of their heavy tanks look very interesting. We have to realize too that almost all tanks were small prior to WWII. Look at some of the US and German pre-1940 tanks.
Thanks for sharing this Video.
14:43
"So do we build an armored car, a boat or a tank?"
"yes"
Interesting. Most of the more modern looking stuff seems to sport Pzkw III/IV chassis with cobbled on KV 1 turret. The amphibious units are something else. Thanks!
some heavies are missing, such as the type97 heavy & the aichi ai96
The strength of Japanese military is Navy.Since the lost of Battle of Midway,it was doomed for Japan.
And their mass produced Zero war planes as well and their infantry also have good spirits in the battles
It was doomed from Pearl harbor don't forget we had an Atlantic fleet and they where not really needed in the Atlantic at the time.Besides England could have taken on the small German fleet and the Italian fleet who's fleet would have been no good in the Atlantic as it was designed to fight in the Med. so thair ships had a shorter range not good for in the Atlantic where they would need to travel long distances.
wonderful piece of music
yea so good i muted it
Really interesting overview of Japanese armor. I like anything on the Japanese military from back in those days.
Where's the type 5 heavy,?
You play WoT?
Xd
4:49
！？！？
ゆっくりドラキン これあったらもうパンジャンドラム以上の珍兵器になってましたね・・・
Japan did a superb job considering its industrial base was smaller at that time than Italy's.
I love the Type I Che-He Medium standing at attention at 7:45 with their katanas. My best guess was that the katanas had three probable functions:
1. Carrying swords provided a connection to Bushido and the Samurai.
2. Swords might have been part of the uniform.
3. Carrying swords might have promoted an "esprit de corps" and a spirit of aggression.
If anyone knows the actual reason behind why these men were carrying katanas as sidearms, please let me know.
Part of the Uniform.
To behead the prisoners
Thankyou ,I learned and enjoyed this.Their tanks was fine for them ,it was a different war in europe..
WOW! Spectacular! I had no idea. There just isn,t much mention of this stuff,anywhere,good on you! Torpedos on a tank,what were they smoking,to come up with that? Think what a T-34/85 would have done to any of those designs.And yet, 25 years later,Honda bikes and Toyota cars had Detroit sweating. Go figure. Welldone,sir.PGM?
great vid thanks
Only watched to see what the majority of War Thunder Japanese tanks would have.
Ryan Dupre I'm a bit hyped.
I hope they'll add the amphibious ones and they'll float properly. It'd be fun to drive around, probably not so fun to fight in unless they give almost all super low battle rating.
Seriously they'd have problems in arcade battles against StuG A & such that are currently dominating 1.3 BR
Flybager stug a are not that hard to beat!
A very professionally done presentation. It appeares the Japnese adopted sloping armor well before the advent of the T-34.
+ZnenTitan Nice noticing. That was what I was thinking when I was looking at the front end of a lot of those tanks. Their glacis has a serious slope in it that would have increased the effectiveness of the otherwise thin armor. Their turrets just seem to be really robust and boxy. I wonder if they did that for increased elevation and depression, or if they just look oversized because the tanks, for the most part, were pretty small.
@@jlawsl ,,, 12mm thick wont get her done tho
Has Tamiya release Type 89 middle tank model?
+thehammerleung i have never played the game , i only make video's :)
+jmantime Tamiya is a company that produces scale models.
Brian Martin oh
8:32 Chi-Ri II in background :D
Thank you, some look like the Soviet T-26 turret and chassis, seen some light tank model before but I never know the Japanese had SPG/Heavy tanks type:)
For the battle of Bukit Chandu!!!!!
Gotta love that first one... it's basically a bren gun carrier with a superstructure and turret!
Compared to what was being produced and experimented within Europe and the cash starved joke tank programme in the US, Japan was leaps and bound ahead during the 1930's in armour and armaments. It's just that they produced so many of these 1930's tanks that they served long past their use by date.
Armour wise, Japanese tanks carried more than the average of 1930's light tanks and double that of 1930's medium tanks. Armament wise they outgunned 90% of the French tanks used in 1940.
In 1939 87 out of the 127 tanks in the US Army were crappy French FT-17 tanks. The rest were collections of prototypes, congress neutered cavalry tanks and WW1 Anglo-American Mark.VIII. heavy tanks plus 2 steam tanks. When offered decent tank prototypes by J Walter Christee, the US Government turned them down. The rest of the world didn't and the US had to play catch up during WW2.
The two worst tank design nations in WW2 turned out to be Italy and France, the latter couldn't even be bothered to fit tank guns that could penetrate German panzers or anything larger than a 1 man turret. France even managed to produce a tank that was faster in reverse (AMX-40).
If you look at what the rest of the world was doing with tank development in the 1930's, Japan sits in 3rd place behind Britain (2nd) and Russian (1st).
Yes they were busy slaughtering Chinese peasants in the 1930s and couldn't be bothered with things like armor development....
Andy Reid Horribly incorrect. The Germans had the best tanks in the world since 1935 with the panzer II. That could shred Japanese ranks to pieces. And the majority of US tanks in 1939 were Stuart’s, not Renault’s,
@@haganshows Yes, Stuart Shitty tanks made of wood
The Char-B had more then enough fire power to destroy the relativly light german tanks and the Somua S35 was also easily able to take on a german tank of the time. The heaviest tank the germans had was the Panzer IV, which at the time wasnt equipped for tank vs. tank combat, but infantry support. That leaves us with only the Panzer III. In comparison the French had several tanks, that were more heavily armed and armored.
The french tank design was flawed, due to a missleading mindset during the design phase, but saying that french tanks couldnt penetrate a german tank is just wrong.
More than impressive!Amazing.Like Russia,Germany and USA together.Japan saved it for the last battle in Japan soil to destroying land invasion.Without of Nuclear bomb Japan was never occupied.My greetings and respect from Serbia.Tenno Heika Banzai!
Why can't anyone see the beauty of these tanks?
the chi-nu is beautiful
PIXEL KILLERZ FINALLY!
every japanese tank is like a Katana. Beautiful but deadly
KeinNameLP Exactly. Just a shame that the O-Series wasn't put into production.
Their beauty can be easily scratched by Panzer IV,M4 Sherman & T-34-85.
Nice vid, thanks. You should of mentioned the seating arrangements. And total number I didnt start keeping count till 5 min in. Tee Hee.
seraphil1 Nice comment right on the mark thank you. I am sure if you asked any veteran any tank no matter what the design, is an unwelcome sight when you are lightly armed and in squad/platoon formation.
i gave this a thumbs up ..... mainly for the music.
Whare is The type 5 heavy?
Thanks for sharing. A lot of work must have been done in compiling this video. I agree with some friends here that the shortage of material had hindered Japanese tank development to a great extent. These tanks worked more than well when Japan invaded its Asian neighbors comprising mostly harmless farmers. Japanese easy victory in late 1930s further instilled among the majority of Japanese the idea of Japan's invincibility that, like Hitler's idea about Junker 87, further development in armament would be a waste of resources if total victory was only a mater of a few more months away. In Japanese Army's philosophy, tanks and artilleries were tools for laying siege and were of less importance to army's aviation corps. Japanese early gains were mostly Pacific islands and jungles, except in China, where tanks would be difficult to operate. That was one more reason that tanks were sidelined. Perhaps the most critical reason for ineffective development in tanks was samurai's arrogance that the final blow, thus lead to victory, upon enemy should be dealt by a charging army officer waiving his sword with his face clearly visible to his peer, rather than hiding disgracefully behind a metal hull, as a true way to honor his family clan's name. The same mindset also applied to Japanese Navy's use of submarines. But one thing still not explained: if Japan were to eventually invade Australia, where main battle tanks would be desperately needed in considerable amount, and if they do made it there, then how did they plan to keep the Downunder?
もしもっと開発が早ければ五式中戦車は役に立ったかな？
シャーマンの正面抜けるんだっけ？
三式でも正面から抜ける
チヌの大隊見たかったなぁ。あったんやスゲー画像有難うm(_ _"m)
Every one in the comments who's asking about the O-I tank seen in World of Tanks needs to consider that there are no photographs remaining of the tank. Also, most of the Tanks in WoT are either made up or existed only in Blueprints...
Blueprints yes, made up yes, but at least they Wargaming made one of the best ww2 tank game and one of a true rival of War Thunder
占守島の戦い：1945年8月17日-8月21日で日本軍はソビエト軍に勝ちましたがアメリカの命令により降伏しました。
日本軍戦車はソビエト軍に勝ちました。
実際に戦闘が長引いていればソビエト軍は完全に粉砕されました。
貴重な映像をありがとうございました。
そうなんだ！初耳〜
コミンテルンだけで戦ってたら
勝ててたのかな？
んー、けど人的･物的資源で不足
してる日本の方がフリな気が
Man i wish type 4 and 5 are there
Type 4 and 5 are mobile fortress wich can broke through enemy fortification /defense line
Its also called bunker.....havent they documented the type 4 and 5?they are not just blue prints
Anyone cames here because got ass-kicked by Japanese 100-ton multiturret Heavy tank that drive with maximum speed at 40 km/h?
I haven't yet. Not at that tier. I mainly play WT and AW, rarely WOT Or WOW.
+Cars n' Bikes whats the AW?
+Hol oton Advanced Warfare
u mean Armored Warfare advanced is Cod
The one and O-Ni
By the way, Could I know title of the background music, sound so familiar :D
Song is called Gada Meilin
jmantime Thank you :)
*Ode to joy / Ode an die Freude
Nice work and thanks for posting.
Some of the AFVs within were previously unknown to me, while others are shown in very difficult to locate photos. I've read that Popular Science issue with the R/C Tank article; it was fun to see it here.
Especially interesting were the AA Tanks, about which little is available elsewhere.
your welcome
You missed one the O-I tank!.
It was an experimental tank which never went to mass production and it is believed one was built for trials in Manchuria, but no photos from then exist besides that it was a massive turd that could barely keep pace with infantry and wasn't really needed.
The One True Beast yeah but still, they did make the tracks tho!.
I noticed how Italy/Hungary/Romania took way to make Stug like vehicles and Japan goes way of more improvised design Marder like.
I believe that the Japanese would have more efficient in tank combat if they were not short on valuable materials, considering their most produced (and most effective tank) had about 1,700 developed during the war, and they were very short on oil and other fuels to power tanks.
As American couldn’t design over 30m wide battle ship because of the Panama Canal, Japanese couldn’t design over 20tons tank because of maximum load of harbor facilities.
The Japanese built giant warships and small, almost toy tanks. A paradox!
My favorite youtuber
Could anyone dig up more on that Type 97 Kaisho mod? Looks really awesome but I'm unable to follow the forum link in the description or find any other info on it.
Why is the Chi-Ri labeled as a heavy tank? I thought it was a medium tank given it was just an up armored and beef up Chi-To.
WatcherMovie008 size. It was classified as a HT in the Japanese army
狂ミ 康太 Kurumi Kouta and it also one and the imperial japan first Main Battle Tanks. well it could be one of the first Main Battle Tanks in WWII alone with the Centurion of the British.
In all the pictures, in the Pacific, most of these tanks are not shown. Most tanks appear to be light tanks with a 37mm main gun.
why those japanese tank destroyers and SPGs where not in world of tanks?
Where are license version of Renault? (Renault Otsu)
The japanese armor was still patterned on WW1 type tanks it seems. They couldn't stand against the Soviet t-34s or m4 shermans.
A good vid to improve the japanese tech tree in WoT
Wargaming should watch this
Thanks for posting this very interesting and sometime bewildering list of tanks. Really, a glider tank? Some of these types really show the desperation of the Japanese army from 1943 onwards.
These things were model T,s compared to what they were up against,I guess they thought we would show up on horseback.
Beautiful music! Somebody could tell me what is that? Is a symphony? Who wrote it?
Gada Meilin - Gada Meilin by: Shanghai Philharmonic Orchestra
I am suprised japan did so much with such limited weaponry. A few of the designs look like they might have been useful, especially the mobile guns. But over all thin armor, small turrets, low speed, and for the most part guns that did not look as though they were ever intended for tank-to-tank combat.
The natives couldn't do much to the tanks that could actually deflect a bullet.
+William Byrd they were not intended for fighting other tanks...you are right.
Countdown70s at the start of the war most tanks were very ight and intended to support infantry....the Japanese didn't get away from that model.
to be honest f your up against infantry ANY armored vehicle is a dangerous weapon. as long as it can bounce a bullet or slow one down nine times out of ten...which is not hard against an infantry rifle.
Smiley Face Not with rifles..
I think that's why someone invented the Molotov cocktail. an empty glass bottle, a bit of gasoline, or kerosene and a rag...instant anti tank grenade....unfortunately it's range is limited, and infantry men tend to shoot people trying to set tanks on fire....repeatedly, with murderous intent.
@Hannibal EnemyofRome
Actually all countries of WW2 used WW1 weaponry at any point.
Also you should know, any tank battles fought in the pacific were practically only between M5 Stuart and Chi-Ha.
The terrain in the pacific only really allowed light tanks to be of any use, it was a rare case USN could use shermans.
Rook, only in the early campaigns did the U.S. use the Stuart. By the Tarawa campaign and beyond, the Marine and Army tank battalions were equipped with M4A2 Shermans and Sherman Flame tanks. The Stuart's were too lightly armed to be much use against bunkers.
本当はもっとあるけど、その殆どが試作で1台作ったか設計で終わったかなんだよね．．． ちょっと迷走しすぎた…
+n_ yo41
To all English speakers I saved you some time and translated it for you.
Actually Though some more , but it 's what the do almost has finished in the design or made one prototype . . . Hey it was too stray ...
Your sexy
Ok guys I’m Japanese and let me tell you guys...type 92 is a just a freaking Cardboard
I like the fakt that it is a "heavy tank" an it has 17mm anour
What is this music? Its great.
Gada Meilin - Gada Meilin
japan didn't have sufficient manufacturing capability in ww2, even if they had a good tank design they wouldn't have been able to build it in sufficient numbers and then to transport them to the various islands they occupied would have been a problem and supplying the tanks with fuel and ammunition would have been difficult for them
Typ 2 Ka-Mi ❤
WOW beautiful tank
Pity none of the super heavies got a mention.
Wow Toyota Prius technology and reliability way back 70 yrs ago!
I prefer actual commentary. but you do get pictures here.
Japanese tanks were not intended for anti-tank warfare, but for interpersonal warfare.
Wheres O I,wheres O Ni,where is O HO wheres type 4 and 5 heavy man?
none of them were produced and the only O-I prototype built in mild steel was never photographed and was scrapped later on in the war, thats why the author cant even put them in. also O-Ni and O-Ho dont exist, the desgin of O-Ho is the O-I 120, the prototype built was the O-I 100
@@leemarcus6123 Thx man but what about types? They were protecting beaches arent they?
@@bxndxlx4150 For type 4/5 they were little information about their existence, the closest thing was a photograph about a bunker turret carrying the 14cm naval gun. its unknown whether did the type 4/5 exist to be a mobile platform for it or were they canceled then the gun placed on the bunker. but its confirmed that its in some way an extension of the O-I project. the type 5 is simply an upgraded version of the type 4 to improve its mobility by reducing the engine volume and weight.
@@leemarcus6123 yea that is visible :D
In the Type 2 Ku-Se no one noticed a Italian 90mm SPG?
The Italian M 41M semovente da 90
What is name music ?
Damn, Ill never forget the fact that porsche used to make tanks for the nazis just as nissan used to make tanks for imperial japan.
And Renault made tanks for the French (even plane engines)
Some of the Japanese medium tanks are like ft 17s but with the turret replaced.
do they not weld their tanks?
no, and those rivets become projectiles in the tank when hit also.poor design
14:20 my initial reaction was like......they got Maus??????!!!!!!!
There should have been a decent remote-control model of a Japanese tank, an 89 or 95 or 97,, in 1/30 scale or bigger,
but I guess maybe Japanese WW2 machines are a sore point in China for same reasons as Russian kit-makers like Novo refused to make kits of WW2 Axis machines..
Alternatively should be RCs of British desert tanks like Matilda or Mk III Cruiser/Crusader
I notice all the detractors against Japanese armor of this time period are incapable of mentioning any actual factual details about tanks like the Type 95 or Type 97 Shinhoto, but are fully capable of rambling off American rhetoric and second-hand comments about .50 BMG being able to shoot through 25mm of steel(the Type 97's primary armor thickness) at any realistic combat range. These also seem to be the same people who ramble about M4 Sherman ronsons/tommy cookers, a 5-to-1 odds needed for M4s to kill a Panther or Tiger, and how the Germans would have destroyed us if they could have mass-produced the Maus.
Also, there is a big difference between a tank being obsolete against the enemy it faces, and simply being bad. The Type 95 was already five years old by the time the US M3 Stuart was first rolled out, and in the first tank vs. tank combat the US experienced, the Type 95 sent the M3 Stuart running, and in future engagements fought near-equally against the newer tank. Of course, being a light tank designed for infantry support in jungles and mountains, it would falter against newer medium tank designs(M3 Lee, M4) that had already gone through the anti-tank teething process in Europe and Africa, let alone dedicated tank destroyers like the M10 and M18. On top of all of that? The US armor divisions outnumbered the Japanese tanks by a ridiculous amount. In any one battle, you may have 10 Type 95s and 5 Type 97s facing dozens of M4s.
Tanks like the Chi-Nu, Chi-To, and the various tank destroyer projects would have been dangerous threats to the US armor. The Type 1 Ho-Ni I was produced in 1942 and was capable of defeating Shermans with it's 75mm gun. However, it was produced in very limited amounts, and further developments(which led as far as the Ho-Ri, a design reminiscent of the German Elefant with a 105mm gun that only had a wooden mock-up made by the war's end) were kept to the home islands in preparation for an invasion that never came. All for the best, really.
I would be interested in where the Stuarts ran. Sorry it is a fact no Japanese tank was equal to the Sherman. I see you couldn't wait to get your shot in about the Panther and Tiger. The Sherman was never designed to fight the Mk-4,5,6. It was designed and dominated the Mk 3's in North Africa. I wonder if the British win at El Alamein with out the Sherman. Interesting thought. I can't understand why people are so quick to hate on American stuff. The Japanese were actually dominated. They never made an Armored vehicle that was any good. In fact they considered it a little cowardly to hide in a tank. Their hearts just weren't in to tank design. Really if you look at all of their ground weapons, not too impressive. They produced the worst small arms by far of the Second World War. The poor old Sherman never gets any respect you call it names like it had nothing to do with winning the Second World War. I seem to have read somewhere that the winning team was using the Sherman. Maybe I missed something. If you tell me Bataan was where they ran I may throw up. That means you have no idea of the Doctrinal employment of tanks in the US Army in 1941. If you say Singapore then you are wrong. You mention tanks that were prepared for our invasion of main land Japan. We would have probably used a lot of Pershings. A much superior vehicle to every other tank on earth save possibly, a matter of who saw who first, the Panzer MK 6,7.
I forgot. The Japanese, like most Armies of the day, equipped their tanks with low velocity cannons. Not good if you are tank hunting.
akgeronimo501 America's first armoured engagement ended with one stuart being knocked out by Type 95 Ha Go tanks and four retreating from the battlefield. The Japanese made many good armoured vehicles. The Chi Nu, Chi To and Chi Ri were excellent examples. The Shinhoto Chi Ha could penetrate a Sherman frontally at ranges of 200m~500m depending upon what kind of ammo it was using.
j chilton
I don't know who told you that. None of the Japanese armored vehicles were any good. Japanese ground armament was bad all of it. It is an island nation and was very naval oriented.
akgeronimo501
I don't know who told you your information, but I have spent years studying Imperial Japanese tanks. The Type 1 47mm gun had the following penetration:
Type 1 47mm APHE
45mm at 1,500m (Face hardened non carburized) / 20mm (Face hardened carburized)
50mm at 1,000m (Face hardened non carburized) / 30mm (Face hardened carburized)
500m in 65mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 40mm (Face hardened carburized)
200m in 65mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 50mm (Face hardened carburized)
Type 1 47mm Tokko Kou
1,500m in 43mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 20mm (Face hardened carburized)
1,000m in 62mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 37mm (Face hardened carburized)
500m in 76mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 52mm (Face hardened carburized)
200m in 85mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 62mm (Face hardened carburized)
Type 1 47mm Tokko Otsu
1,500m in 51mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 24mm (Face hardened carburized)
1,000m in 74mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 44mm (Face hardened carburized)
500m in 91mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 62mm (Face hardened carburized)
200m in 103mm (Face hardened non carburized) / 74mm (Face hardened carburized)
100m in 121mm (unknown/ Homogenized armour)
All of the instances that cite Face Hardened non-carburized are also the penetrations of homogenized armour.
Japanese Vehicles were good. The Chi Ha, designed in 1939 had a maximum armour thickness of 28mm on its hull and 50mm on its gun mantlet. The Chi He (1941) had 50mm on its hull and 50mm on its turret, the Chi Nu (1943~44) had 50mm of armour on its hull and 75mm on its turret. The Chi To had 75mm of armour on its front and its turret and a top speed of 31 mp/h. The Chi Ri had the same armour, but with a more powerful armament. Would you like to know more?
Ummm were is the o-i line up?
Good Good Video
The important figure is actually the real production runs and unit delivery. How many of each type were actually deployed and transported to the battlefield, with their fuel and ammunition? I would suspect that for most types that figure was in the single or double digits. The US produced over 50 thousand M4's. Sure, the M4 Sherman was inferior to the latest German tanks even in 1943, and really should have been supplemented by a genuine heavy for the European theater (there is an argument that transport space was prohibitive) but the basic M4 was handily superior to practically anything the Japanese possessed.
More importantly, US infantry, Army or Marine, was well-equipped with anti-tank weapons. Even the 37-mm, long dismissed as a doorknocker in Europe, was capable of penetrating nearly any Japanese armoured vehicle at ranges up to 250 yards, and the 57-mm, also obsolete by 1944, was equal to any of them - and this does not count the bazooka, commonly found in any US platoon HQ..
Many as the Japanese types were, they were hardly of any importance at all in the Pacific war, although they were useful and effective against Chinese troops, who were essentially peasants hastily armed with basic rifles. For the western allies, Japanese armor was rarely encountered, and when it was, it was rapidly destroyed by better weapons in the hands of good combat troops. The exception, as usual, was the brief Malayan campaign of Dec 1941 to February 1942, when the British had not deployed any tanks or anti-tank weapons at all, on the charming but idiotic theory that Malaya was unsuitable for tanks, and that therefore the Japanese wouldn't use them. The limited numbers of Japanese tanks therefore ran riot. There was nothing - literally nothing - to stop them.
Main thing is that a lot of the heavier tanks and tank destroyers were held back in mainland Japan for an anticipated mainland invasion. Ofc that never happened, so the majority of those tanks never even fired a shell outside of training and testing.
There is a few tanks and TD's, SPG's WOT should take note of.
My dad a WW2 Navy man said that he thought that the Japanese had no idea what they would be up against in tank battles. The Chinese didn't have any tanks worth talking about they mainly had ww1 obsolete tanks that other countries had thrown away or sold. So the Japanese only had here say information about the American tanks and After ww2 started they got reports from the Germans about American tanks! So when it came time to face American tanks they had to build some bigger ones but were unable to make many because we cut off their steel supplies!!!
At first their mind to using tanks against soliders groups, they ignored using tanks as independence groups,that high of tanks too dangerous for tanks, increasing widths is more safe, they were not using curves surface
music totally inappropriate, just turn it off
Even Australian tanks could compete with Japanese tanks, and that's disturbingly bad. The Eastern theatre just never had impetus to build heavy armour. There just wasn't the open plains and therefore competition leading to heavier and heavier tanks. In fact a lot of the east favoured small, light, highly mobile forces.
さすがチハはかっこいい