Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Waffentrager

  1. United States Gun Control Megathread

    Did some looking into, surprised how much law enforcement stateside has had repeated incidents. Brings me to the question about firearm training, do regular officers and 'sheriffs' undergo different training routines? At first glance it looks like everyday LEO's lack the indepth training I presumed them to have about weapon handling.
  2. Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    Well - I did jump to conclusions without doing the proper looking into before sharing what's found online just because at first glance it matches with other material. So albeit harsh words, I did sort of earn the needed-backlash.
  3. Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    It's clear the text hidden has nothing to do with armour. Blatant out of context shot taking numbers similar to armour and censoring the text. The use of the Rheinmetall gun choice for the Type90's development didnt happen untiil 1988, after the first trial tanks were built. It was a late swap from their own 120 to using a cheaper Rheinmetall. Likely right after was their own round based on the DM33 was conducted leading to the introduction of the tank. I don't know when. Japan does bring up the topic of western comparisons, and even including numbers matching that of the western contemporaries. It would either be clear intel sharing - or just random accurate presumptions. But based on the data they mention on the T-90 project, it seems it could be either or.
  4. Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    Aye, did some digging, this is the chart's header. The original piece specifically labels it as the tanks sighting comparison. Lists 3 alternate options and which was better fit. Just the normal dont trust what you find online at face value. Just coincidentally has identical numbers mentioned about armour elsewhere.
  5. Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    Mitsubishi has a few collections of the TK-X project from the Type90 to planned Type10 projection. This snipbit wasnt with the ones I have, but was found online. It's clear the style is from the same source. Just the one posting seems to have used similar numbers of armour to their advantage and tried censoring the rest to prevent reading in-context, or just failed to get what it said. It's clear at least one more is around that's public. Just not about the protection but built in tech instead. It'd be very welcomed. Especially when they seem to love comparing it to the T-90.
  6. United States Gun Control Megathread

    Until you want to go to university, homeschooling record doesnt hold up with much credibility where I come from.
  7. United States Gun Control Megathread

    An open mind on a topic I have little to no prior experience with. I do appreciate seeing how others think about the given situation.
  8. Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    Do you have the full page? It seems the given snap was not what it was said to be..
  9. United States Gun Control Megathread

    Hm, I suppose I put too much faith into thinking law enforcement would do better at trying to prevent such things. Thanks for sharing!
  10. United States Gun Control Megathread

    Have there been recent cases of officers having their firearms go off in school without the hostile threat in mind? I'm not referring to anything else. It shouldn't be weird to be concerned for your child's safety regardless of the probability of one common situation against the next. Certainly not when its now common coverage on media. Or maybe I'm doing parenting wrong then to feel a level of concern. I trust a teacher to do their job and only their job for the duration the children are there, to learn. I also trust the placed LEO to do their job as well when the situation happens.
  11. United States Gun Control Megathread

    I don't have a disliking of firearms. To make that clear. Although accidents can and do happen involving them because of either the person wielding or an interested child not understand the hazardous potential they can produce. A school shouldn't be a place where you have to worry about the possible result of a firearm going off or a child finding it by coincidence. As what happened just recently for instance with a Teacher. Those accidents do not happen with a proper law enforcement officer keeping his arm on person and not in the classroom or in contact with children regularly. I trust a teacher because that is their sole purpose in the school. I do not trust someone just because they have a permit allowing a concealed carry. They are still regular civilians, not an active law enforcement employer. That's just a personal preference coming from somewhere where regular every-day people dont have the ability to have an obvious firearm on their hip walking down the isle of a grocery market. Likely just paranoia on my part.
  12. United States Gun Control Megathread

    Oh, you're not wrong there. I think proper use of law enforcement is an easier and more obvious approach than to give regular citizens who are just child educators a firearm inside the school building. A person with actual training and experience that is not in immediate contact with children seems like a more appropriate situation. Which, I know in my local area at least that seems to be the case (not quite sure if other regions do this?), there is always one Sheriff on duty at school property. Giving them better training for school shooting situations so they can respond quicker would make me at least more comfortable knowing theres someone adequate to protect my child than a random teacher.
  13. United States Gun Control Megathread

    Not that it isnt a problem, the fact both parties end up disagreeing with anything the other suggest, ultimately limiting the actual progress thats needed to help stop the problem. That is what I am trying to get across. I don't think I would feel safe knowing my child is going to a class where the teacher has a firearm in their possession, no.
  14. United States Gun Control Megathread

    It's horrible and not easy to resolve. But the government there tends to mutually agree its something needing addressing and typically come together in trying new solutions. From what I see, the US is not so mutually agreeing on the problem and how to go about it.. At least that isn't a plain horrid idea, such as the idea of arming teacher staff.
  15. United States Gun Control Megathread

    I have not had a real opinion on the topic of firearm property and control until recently. Coming from a country that has had less than 20 homicides of gun origin in the past 2 years, guns to us mean nothing. Its heavily regulated, and no crimes occur besides the rare less-than-one-percent. But living state-side these past couple years, the reoccurring incidents that appear in media really get out of hand. As a newly parent, I have to say I hope a step forward is taken for the sake of child safety, without having taken back another 2 steps in the process. Because so far I haven't seen any proper solutions come from either side of the government's mouthes.
  16. Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    Japan uses JM33 as the standard to compare. However it seems in this case they used the DM33 number given by Germany to compare its protection against Japanese armour (in files full context). Since DM33 is the lacking of the two, this seems to work out in this case. As Mitsubishi even clarified under the numbers the protection level was “pitiful”. Without disclosing the the full document yes. That’s the layout (the thicknesses at least). However in context this page is using existing standards to compare NATO and Japans prototype defense to the Type90. I excluded the maxmimum protection of the tank as that’s not a public figure and cannot be disclosed. Unless the diagram edited means the maximum protection, its incorrect. The majority general front is 380. The maximum protection is not the presumed edited figure. It’s a bit off in fact.
  17. Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    Should have done proper background checking before jumping to conclusions about what I found online.
  18. General AFV Thread

    Yes - this was the intent. I was not expecting the small diagram to gather much attention outside of a General WT community who did not understand specifics. I highlighted only general areas of protection outside of RHA. Not specific area's of the protection and thickness composure. The actual composite blocks are covering the middle and top of the hull (Yes to later mentioning if Type10 and Type90 share general block placements). The bottom flooring is spaced steel - not the same level of protection. But of that to protect against explosive discharge. Not the same. The tests were conducted at the primary composite blocks at the turret sides frontally. This is the primary defense against JM33. Mantlet is not protected by ceramic and other materials, basic lining only. Without fabric covering , revels external block shell. I will be happy to aid if you have questions or needed context - I will give what I can without breaking privacy agreement.
  19. WoT v WT effort-thread

    Yeah, Gaijin didnt utilize the blueprints I gave them as well as Wargaming did when Daigensui lent it to them. I'm getting it fixed, however.
  20. WoT v WT effort-thread

    ST-A1 Devblog: https://warthunder.com/en/news/4334-development-st-a1-stepping-into-a-new-era-en/ My Tank article: http://sensha-manual.blogspot.com/2016/11/wt-st-a1.html My History Article: http://sensha-manual.blogspot.com/2016/10/fresh-start-new-beginnings.html
  21. WoT v WT effort-thread

    Type3 Chi-Nu. Devblog: https://warthunder.com/en/news/4335-development-type-3-chi-nu-last-line-of-defense-en/ My article: http://sensha-manual.blogspot.com/2016/11/wt-type3-chi-nu.html
  22. The Japanese Ferdinand

    Disclaimer: Yeah naturally Japanese tanks arent a big focus here, so I usually ignore posting things of the matter here. But like the O-I article I posted here oh so long ago, this article comes with the results of some days spent in the archive reading and (continuing to do) translating pages of reports that havent been read in like, decades. So with that said, hope you enjoy. Still a matter I'm unfinished diving into. --------- Type5 Ho-Ri : The Japanese Ferdinand As of recently, I've gone through the Japanese National Archive files, looking through to find documents that relate to my studies. While I was there, I stumbled across something that caught my interest. Of said documents, the one of most importance was a file called "Military Secrets No.1". The reports were held by the Ministry of Defense, Army records section, Munitions Mobilization district. Contained in these files were a 3-page production chart of late war tracked vehicles of the Japanese army. Located within the chart I found a number besides the Type 5 Ho-Ri tank destroyer. A vehicle that until recently was only known to have made it to wooden mockup stages. In this lengthy article I will cover my findings on the tank project. Unfortunately visual representations of the tank are still being looked at. So I will use existing found sources for this. National Institute for Defense Studies " Military secret No.1 " In September of 1942, the Japanese Army Staff came to the realization that they had no choice but to design a series of tanks to compete with the arrival of the American Sherman tank. Three concepts were proposed by the Staff, each with their own gun selection; Kou (47mm), Otsu (57mm), and Hei (75mm). As combat data filtered back to Japanese high command, the model Kou concept would later merge with Otsu concept, becoming the basis for the design of the Type4 Chi-To. The Hei proposal would eventually lead to the development of the Type5 Chi-Ri. Additional impetus for new development projects came from a change in the Weapons Administration Headquarters Research Policy in July 1943, a change which was made as a result of analyzing and examining the situation of the tank warfare between the German army and the Soviet Union. Through analysis of this data, the Army's tank doctrine shifted to an emphasis on developing tanks which prioritized the anti-armor mission instead of prioritizing infantry support with limited anti-tank capability. Upon the promulgation of this policy, the Japanese Army decided to develop a series of tank destroyers alongside the medium tanks being designed. As a result, the Type5 Chi-Ri, Japan’s primary medium-tank project, would become the basis for a new anti-armor vehicle. This was a natural choice for IJA command; the Chi-Ri project was more mature. Additionally, it held the most advanced technology Japan produced at the time, technology which would become ubiquitous in the designs that would be made until Japan's defeat in 1945. Testing model of Chi-Ri. Used to trial the series of cannons and turrets designed for the tank. In the photograph it is captured by US forces after the gun had been dismantled for further trials. By Japan's defeat in 1945, three models of Chi-Ri entered production. The tank destroyer built upon the chassis of the Chi-Ri would eventually be called the Ho-Ri. Development of this vehicle began shortly after the development of the Chi-Ri, when it had been decided that the tank would use the coil spring suspension system that Japanese manufacturers were already familiar with. After this decision was made, the Army also began work on designing the tank destroyer’s superstructure and casemate. The first design the Army came up with mimicked the Chi-Ri chassis entirely, though the turret was replaced with a reinforced rear-mounted superstructure. The Experimental 10cm Cannon With the development of a new series of tank destroyers taking place, the Army decided to design and produce a new high capacity anti-tank gun to fit the role. On July 22 of 1943, the Army Military Customs Council began designing a 105mm caliber anti-tank gun. Once the design of the cannon had been completed, construction of the cannon took place around a steel shielding that was to be the Ho-Ri's superstructure plating. The trial placement was capable of traversing 10 degrees to the left and the right, elevating by 20 degrees, and depressing by 15. The gun weighed 4.7 tons, with a barrel length of 5.759 m. During one of the first council meetings that took place on the 30th of June, however, the council gave Major Ota and Lieutenant Colonel Neima of the Army Weapons Administrative Division, the two chief engineers of the Experimental 10cm project, the task of achieving the requirement that the gun meet 200mm penetration at 600 meters distance and 1000m/s velocity. Naturally, the tank gun was not capable of this, and, instead, the Experimental 10cm had a muzzle velocity of 915m/s with AP (900m/s with HE), and achieved a performance of 150mm penetration at a distance of 1000 meters. The 10cm Experimental Anti Tank gun relied on a system similar to the Type5 75mm Anti tank cannon in relying on an autoloading mechanism for the tank. This mechanism was known as a semi-automatic loading system, different to the ordinary "autoloader" you see in other vehicles. Unlike the typical autoloading system, the loading crew of the gun system placed the individual shells on the chamber, the system automatically ramming the shell into the breech and forwarding to operation. This gave the effect of automating half the loading routine, as the name suggests. The Experimental 10cm was put into service with the Ho-Ri in 1945. The technical name for the model to be used on the prospective production model was known as the Type5 10cm anti tank cannon. The shell rammer used a horizontal chain closing type, and the automatic loading machine was attached to the back of the gun. It was used because loading ammunition of 123 cm total length and 30 kg weight was deemed too strenuous on a small Japanese physique. Various artillery parts had been diverted and referred to in order to shorten the time of development. The autoloading machine adopted the mechanism of the Type3 12 cm AA Gun for inspiration. The automatic loading mechanism was a continual source of problems, but was repeatedly refurbished to eliminate the drawbacks. Photograph of the Experimental 10cm Anti tank cannon during trials. Note: The shielf and protector are used on Ho-Ri prototype. Gun was first tested separately and then placed in tank prototype. Ho-Ri Designs Originally, the Ho-Ri was to keep the secondary 37mm that had been mounted on the Chi-Ri design. The reason for this addition was due to the limited gun-traverse on casemate tank destroyers. Additionally, the primary cannon could only do so much for itself. Hence, to combat many anti tank threats which the Americans could have dedicated to the assault on Japan, the 37mm was seen as being an efficient method of providing additional firepower against infantry and combat vehicles. To this end, the 37mm gun offered a range of APHE and smoke shells. The 37mm was capable of an elevation of 20 degrees and depression of -15 degrees. The mount itself also offered a horizontal traverse of 20 degrees. The 37mm gun could also be used as a ranging device for the main cannon, however this most likely would not have been needed due to the high velocity of the main gun. Outline of the Ho-Ri design I. Technically entered modified construction of one of the 3 Chi-Ri units. The development of the Ho-Ri design was split into two concepts. One being a rear mounted superstructure on the Chi-Ri chassis with a central stationed engine, and the other having a centralized superstructure with a rear engine placement. The Ho-Ri engine selection was different from the traditional diesel that the Army had kept with for most of their tank production. Japan used a BMW designed gasoline V12 aircraft engine . The main reason for this change was due to industrial capacity of Japan reaching its peak, aircraft development was still a heavy priority and many assets were available for useage. The output of the tank was 550hp/1500rpm. The Ho-Ri II’s design also enabled the option of adding a 20mm AA station on the rear hatch for additional protection. However, the likelihood of it being useful is up for debate. In addition, central placement of the superstructure enabled 60 rounds for the main cannon to be stored instead of the Ho-Ri I’s 40 rounds. In terms of armour, both vehicles were to keep the Chi-Ri hull, hence the maximum frontal armour of these tanks was only 75mm. On the superstructure, however, armor thickness was increased to 100mm. By the time both designs, which had been developed in parallel, were presented to Army General Staff it was too late; the war was almost over, and the thickness of the armor was no longer sufficient against US armaments. Nevertheless, the design showed promise. Thus, while neither design was chosen for production, the Ho-Ri I was adopted as the main influence for the third revision of the tank. This third vehicle is commonly labeled as Ho-Ri III. Technically, however, none of the Ho-Ri vehicles were numerically designated. Ho-Ri III wooden mockup. Ho-Ri III took the basis of the Ho-Ri I, and revamped it to fit the needs of the military. The frontal plate of the tank was sloped at a 70 degree angle and increased to 120mm thickness. In this configuration, the tank was capable of withstanding most anti tank measures the Unites States could bring to the home islands of Japan. The designers of the tank built a wooden mockup form of the revision 3 design and presented it to the general staff, at an unknown date. The Ho-Ri kept its general composition the same as the prior designs, but this change was what the Army Staff ultimately decided to go with and schedule the Ho-Ri for prototype construction. The tank would have a crew total of 6; driver, gunner, two loaders, radio operator, and commander. The past designs made use of the 37mm that the Chi-Ri hull had present, however, with the chosen slope change on the Ho-Ri III, this was no longer present and a crew member spot was open. The 6th crew member was placed as the second loader to assist with the autoloading mechanism and provide shells for the primary loader. The construction of the prototype was completed in 1944. The tank achieved a speed of 40kmh during the trials. The tests were seen as a success, resulting in the Army ordering 5 units of the tank. The tank was put in service as the Type5 Ho-Ri, as the production model started in 1945. However, by the time of the war's end, the series of tanks only made it to 50% completion. Only one operable prototype had been completed fully. Reports of the trial are still being processed at this time [11/15/16]. My research continues. I have been spending days now trying to go through everything and get the details of the tank out to the light. Once all the documents are collected together and organized, translated, and put back together I will write a follow up article to this. You can view full post with all images on my blog post: http://sensha-manual.blogspot.com/2016/11/type5-ho-ri-japanese-ferdinand.html
  23. The Japanese Ferdinand

    Japanese tank destroyers are split between assault guns and gun tanks. Ones of popular mention are the Na-To series (30 produced). The others are mainly assault guns using the chi ha chassis and the alike. There is also the Ka-To. Which like the Ho-Ri is the project based off the new doctrine. Instead of Chi-Ri it uses Chi-To chassis as the base. Only one prototype, never made it to production numbers.
  24. The Japanese Ferdinand

    Yes. The files say maximum armour thickness at the front is a 120mm plate. How successful they were at it is up for wild guesses.
  25. The Japanese Ferdinand

    There are more tank destroyers all together. But yes, 3 models of both Ho-Ri and Ho-Ni.