Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Jagdika

WWII Japanese Tanks in China

Recommended Posts

All photos were taken by myself in year 2016 during my visit to Beijing. Tanks are from the Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution and the Tank Museum(currently closed). Enjoy.

 

No.1: Type 94 Light armored car (Tankette) in the Tank Museum

 

171604z2hj6qsptunutq92.jpg

171609xbigttwkwkv4wirk.jpg

171610jdz2vdwsirw3suud.jpg

171613puhvccn9s3s59h6u.jpg

171616xdhcjlqmttp5cb18.jpg

 

This is the early version of the Type 94 Tankette. It was found in a river in 1970s. It is the best preserved Type 94 Tankette in the world.

 

No.2: Type 97 Medium Tank in the Tank Museum

 

172516pxz5xnjjj7hywj6e.jpg

171622sbp29wj1wmjfqpdj.jpg

171625q9k95t2ywb2zy0ya.jpg

171628glfwfclofcskkgqo.jpg

 

171630vpfzi5f04z731047.jpg

171633kw319f73wsa7b76s.jpg

171636nfve7vijzvbovbxy.jpg

171639gwp0iio6s6zo0800.jpg

171645q9usu04iou8964sp.jpg

171642c1qyc1vym9c033m2.jpg

171648f8dybzuurx8u5brb.jpg

This is a late version Type 97 medium tank. It carries the old small 57mm gun turret but has the revised engine ventilation port. This tank was donated by the Soviet 7th mechanized division  before they withdrew from China in 1955.

 

No.3: Type 97 Medium Tank Kai in the Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution

 

171558foecnc7zospoec7p.jpg

 

171748qwakivzi3ob3haar.jpg

171748tts8l1z0l8hlkbbt.jpg

 

 

 

  This Type 97 Medium Tank Kai's combat serial number is 102. It belonged to the former China North-East tank regiment. It took part in the attack of Jinzhou against KMT army on 1948-9-14, and did great contribution for knocking out their bunkers and MG nests by shooting and ramming. Thus after the battle this tank was awarded with an honored name:"The Hero(功臣号)“ About the tank itself, it was assembled by the Chinese army themselves by using destroyed or damaged Chi-Ha parts after the surrender of Japan. This particular tank was built up with a normal Type 97's chassis(57mm gun version) early model, and a Type 97 Kai's Shinhoto(New turret for the 47mm gun). However there are other saying claim that this tank was modified by the Japanese. It was the first tank that roared over the Tiananmen Square during the Founding Ceremony of China on 1949-10-1.

 

 

174652u4k634k6kzjavt4j.jpg

The same tank on 1949-10-1. China's tank army origins from old IJA tanks.

 

No.4: Type 97 Medium Tank in the Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution

 

175246hlvr8i1421x10uv4.jpg

Sorry, only one photo was taken. This Type 97 Medium Tank has a chassis from Type 97 Medium Tank Kai and a turret from a normal Type 97 Medium Tank. It was merged together by the Chinese army.

 

No.5: Type 95 Armored Track(Train track) Vehicle in the Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution

 

175247k1qlul638tqfnqa6.jpg

175247ulcn7i77wlniojzo.jpg

175247in2syn3kvv151hy3.jpg

 

Only two samples survived. One is in China here and one is in Kubinka, Russia (Maybe now it is transfered to the Patriot Park? I don't know).

 

 

Hope you enjoy the photos I took! No repost to other places without my permission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating stuff, thank you. It's interesting to see how tank development progressed in a country whose machines were (for the most part) used to facing only infantry without AT rifles. Some of them look rather endearingly like mobile teapots, dishwashers or Wallace & Gromit constructions. I note that they largely used what appears to be a form of Horstmann suspension, which I assume was for reasons of monetary and material expedience, and it surprised me to learn that the British Chieftain used the same...or probably similar, to be more accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jamby said:

Fascinating stuff, thank you. It's interesting to see how tank development progressed in a country whose machines were (for the most part) used to facing only infantry without AT rifles. Some of them look rather endearingly like mobile teapots, dishwashers or Wallace & Gromit constructions. I note that they largely used what appears to be a form of Horstmann suspension, which I assume was for reasons of monetary and material expedience, and it surprised me to learn that the British Chieftain used the same...or probably similar, to be more accurate.

 

It's similar in the sense that any suspension system with springing elements will operate on a very similar principle to all the others. Chieftain et al have two wheels per spring, and load the spring in compression; whereas the Type 97 Medium Tank has springs in tension and one wheel per spring on the front and rear, and looks to have 4 wheels supported by the same spring in the middle. The rotating bogie on a sprung swingarm is neat, and quite like the ferdinand (or more likely the ferdinand was like the japanese tanks, given the production dates)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xlucine said:

 

It's similar in the sense that any suspension system with springing elements will operate on a very similar principle to all the others. Chieftain et al have two wheels per spring, and load the spring in compression; whereas the Type 97 Medium Tank has springs in tension and one wheel per spring on the front and rear, and looks to have 4 wheels supported by the same spring in the middle. The rotating bogie on a sprung swingarm is neat, and quite like the ferdinand (or more likely the ferdinand was like the japanese tanks, given the production dates)

 

...It's quickly dawning on me that I'm going to need to read a lot more about tank suspension. At a glance, the suspension types look virtually identical, though I suppose much of their inner workings is concealed behind the wheels themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jamby said:

I note that they largely used what appears to be a form of Horstmann suspension

You are right, the Japanese is really fond of the Horstmann type suspension, Although they did not actually bought one of the foreign tank which use that suspension. To some extent the horizontal coil spring suspension largely used by the Japanese tanks was designed by themselves (Tomio Hara). From Type 94 Tankette (the first Japanese tank applied with that suspension) to the mighty Type 5 medium tank their suspension design are all similar. 

Here is an overall picture of Type 97 medium tank's suspension:

131105tddllhlh4tqziach.jpg

 

This is the initial suspension design (road wheel and spring arrangement) on Experimental Type 97 medium tank No.1. It comes basically straight from the standard Horstmann suspension

 

131106jkauzafa34liaeuk.jpg 

 

Hope these will help :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

That setup looks extremely vulnerable to mines. Did the Japanese write anything about suffering damage from Chinese IEDs?

Maybe, but to be honest I haven't found out any original Japanese archives regarding the Tanks'(I have Type 89's, but it uses leaf springs, and most damages were not caused by IEDs) damage report caused by Chinese IEDs or homemade explosives, probably because there were too few encounters in 1940s. But I'll sure let you know when I find them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Akula_941
      Anti-air bobcat design to take away driver's hearing in maximum efficiency

      SH11  155mm SPG


    • By Sturgeon
      Let's say you're developing a tank with a unique (AKA non-historical) gun for one of our competitions here on SH. It would be nice to have an idea of the size of the gun, its shells, and what their performance both in terms of shell weight and velocity but also penetration, wouldn't it? Well, fortunately there is a way to do this with reasonably accurate results using your solid modeling software and some free to use browser tools.

      First, you want to have a general idea of the size and performance of your gun. For this example, I decided I wanted an optimized, high velocity 85mm caliber gun with a case about as big as the 7.5cm KwK 42 (as it happened, I ended up with a case that had significantly greater volume, but that fact is unimportant for this example). The cartridge I decided on has a 130mm wide rim and a 640mm long case, of course in 85mm caliber. My first step was to model this case in SolidWorks:


       
      You will also need to model your projectile, in this case a tungsten-carbide cored APCR round:


       
      Next, we need a bit of freeware: A Powley computer. Originally developed by DuPont engineers for small arms ammunition, the Powley computer is an accurate enough tool to use for much larger tank rounds as well! When you click the link, you'll be greeted with this screen:
       

       
      You'll note the dimensions are in inches and this thing called "grains" (abbreviated "gn"). The grain is an archaic Imperial mass unit equal to 1/7000th of a pound which is still used in the small arms field, today. Another quirk of small arms has the case capacity - a volume measurement - listed in grains as well. This is in fact grains of water (gn H2O), or the weight of water that will fill the case to the top. To find this, simply multiply the volume in cubic centimeters by 15.43 - which is also the exchange rate between the metric gram and grains mass.
       
      Finding the volume of the case is easy with a solid modeling program; simply model the interior as a solid and find the volume of that solid:


       
      Filling in my Powley inputs gives me this:
       

       
      Note that I typically use the diameter of the projectile across the driving bands for "Bullet Diameter", but it really makes very little difference.
       
      So far, though, we haven't actually produced any results. That's because our gun is well outside the bounds of DuPont production IMR powders, hence the output "Much slower than (IMR) 4831" in the lower left. So, we need to override the computer by checking the box next to the blue "Pressure" function, and typing in a pressure value in CUP that is reflective of tank guns of whatever era we are trying to represent. My tank gun is trying to represent something from about the late 1940s/early 1950s, so I'm going to use 45500 CUP EDIT: USE 41000 CUP for APCBC and 42800 CUP FOR APCR (or better yet, do your own calibration!):
       

       
      This gives me an estimated muzzle velocity of 3,964 ft/s for my L/50 barrel. Not bad! Note the outputs on the left, which tell you a bunch of fun facts about your round but aren't terribly relevant to what we're doing here today. Next, we need to put this gun's performance in terms of penetration. The way I like to do this is through comparative analysis.
       
      The first thing we need is to know to find penetration the ballistic performance of our round. We can estimate this using JBM's ballistic calculator and a few rules of thumb. When opening the calculator, the first thing you'll see is this:
       

       
      We care about basically none of these settings except BC, velocity, and maximum range. Caliber, projectile weight, chronograph distance, etc are all pretty irrelevant to us. Keep the environmental settings (temperature, pressure, etc.) set to their defaults. First, change the ballistic coefficient type from G1 to G7 using the dropdown menu. Then, change the muzzle velocity from 3000 to whatever the muzzle velocity was that was calculated by the Powley computer. Finally, set the maximum range to your desired distance - in my case 2,000 yards.

      For my round, I now have inputs that look like this:
       


      We also need to get some idea of how fast our projectile loses velocity, something we can't know for certain without actually building a real gun and test firing it - or at least without some really sophisticated simulations. However, projectiles with the same shape tend to fly the same way, and that's something we can exploit here. To figure this out, we need a graph showing us the performance of a real-life gun. Fortunately, there is a handy one for an IRL gun similar to what I'm designing, the 90mm M3 from World War II, and its M304 HVAP-T, which is broadly similar in construction and shape to my 85mm APCR projectile:
       

       
      Based on this chart, we see that the M304 should drop from its 3,350 ft/s muzzle velocity to about 2,500 ft/s at 2,000 yards. Doing a little trial and error with JBM tells me that this means the M304 has a G7 ballistic coefficient of about 1.13.
       
      Now, our projectile will not have the same ballistic coefficient, due to it being a different size and mass. But, we can figure out what its ballistic coefficient would be by finding its sectional density and comparing that to the sectional density of M304. To find sectional density, take the projectile's weight in grains and divide it by the square of the projectile's diameter in inches, times 7000. So for M304, we get:
       

       


      And for my 85mm, we get:


       

       
      This means that the ballistic coefficient for an identical-shape projectile with our size and weight will be about 1.019/1.330 - or 76.6% as much - as that of the 90mm M304. That means a BC of 0.866 G7 should be approximately correct for my 85mm APCR round. Let's plug that in:


       
      And then scroll down to the bottom to click "calculate", which gives us a big ol' chart that goes out to 2,000 yards:
       

       
      O-Kay! Now we have some data. It looks like at 2,000 yards, my projectile holds about 2,800 ft/s striking velocity. It's important to note here that what we really care about isn't the striking velocity of the projectile per se, but the velocity and energy of the projectile's core. The core is what's actually doing a lot of work to the armor, so for now let's stop thinking in terms of the whole projectile, and take a look at these two cores, that of the M304 90mm HVAP, and that of my 85mm APCR round. The core of the 90mm M304 is an approximately 8 pound lump of tungsten-carbide that is about 45mm in width. My penetrator is also 8 pounds, but it's longer and thinner in proportion - just 40mm wide, rather than 45mm. This means my penetrator will penetrate more armor at a given striking velocity, and we can estimate how much more by taking the specific energy of the rounds and comparing them. That is, the energy in Joules of the penetrator alone, divided by the penetrator's diameter squared:
       

       


      So the specific energy at 2,000 yards is about 826J/mm^2. Now, we need to find out at what impact velocity the M304 penetrator produces this same specific energy. Do do that, we go backwards, using the figures for M304:
       

       

       
      Therefore, the equivalent impact velocity for my 85mm APCR round at 2,000 yards is 3,150 ft/s for the M304. That means, in theory, that the M304 would have to impact a target at 3,150 ft/s to produce equivalent penetration of RHA to my 85mm APCR striking at just 2,800 ft/s.

      Now, we head back to that chart:


       
      On the left side of the graph, we put our cursor on the line that corresponds to approximately 3,150 ft/s velocity, and follow it over until it hits the curved line that corresponds with the angle of plate we care about - arbitrarily, let's pick 20 degrees. Then, we follow that point straight down until it hits the x-axis:


       
      Therefore, we estimate that at 2,000 yards, my 85mm has just over 10 inches of RHA penetration - not bad at all for a lowly APCR round!
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      Since we don't have a thread for British and Commonwealth tanks of WWII, I thought I would start one.  
       
      Check out this manufacturers instructional video on the Crusader.
       
       
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      Since Xlucine suggested it in the general AFV thread, here is a new version of the old Tank ID thread that used to exist at the WoT forums, back before the great exodus to SH.
       
      The rules are simple.  Post a picture of some sort of AFV and everyone has to try to name what it is.  Try to avoid posting a new picture until the previous picture is identified.  Generally, the person who was first to correctly ID the picture in question gets to post the next picture, unless they want to pass.  If a picture is not ID'd in a day or two, the person that posted it should say what it is and bask in their own sense of superiority.   They should then post a new picture for the sake of keeping the thread moving.  Please, no fictional tanks, paper napkin drawings that never made it to prototype or pictures where the vehicle in question is obscured or particularly hard to see.  Also, if posting a picture of an unusual variant of a relatively common vehicle, be sure to note that you are looking for the specific variant name, not just the general family of vehicles it belongs to (for example, if I post a picture of a Panzer IV with the hydrostat drive, I would say in the post something like "What makes this Panzer IV unusual?" since everyone can ID a Panzer IV)
       
      It is perfectly ok to shame those that make spectacularly wrong guesses.  That's just how we roll around here.  
       
      I'll start 
       

×