PDA

View Full Version : Japanese Type 97 Tank now vulnerable to .50 cal



chris455
12-26-2004, 07:48 PM
I just patched up to 3.03 and went on a ground pounding sortie in my Jug. After shooting up all the Japanese trucks, etc.I could find, and using my rockets and bombs on the armor, there was 1 Chi-Ha running away like mad. So I thought, "what the heck?" and hosed him with the .50s. Brewed him up like a cup of tea.

Is this historical or hysterical?
I know Japanese tanks have a reputation for being little better than sardine tins, but I'm not convinced it's deserved.
I read recently that,on paper at least, the Chi-ha was comparable to an early PzKw III.

chris455
12-26-2004, 07:48 PM
I just patched up to 3.03 and went on a ground pounding sortie in my Jug. After shooting up all the Japanese trucks, etc.I could find, and using my rockets and bombs on the armor, there was 1 Chi-Ha running away like mad. So I thought, "what the heck?" and hosed him with the .50s. Brewed him up like a cup of tea.

Is this historical or hysterical?
I know Japanese tanks have a reputation for being little better than sardine tins, but I'm not convinced it's deserved.
I read recently that,on paper at least, the Chi-ha was comparable to an early PzKw III.

DayGlow
12-26-2004, 07:56 PM
did it flip the tank over?

berg417448
12-26-2004, 07:57 PM
http://www.onwar.com/tanks/japan/index.htm

This site shows that the armor was only 8mm or 9mm thick in some places on that tank. Checking the armor thickness for the German tanks listed on that site shows that they have much thicker armor.
As far as how much armor a .50 caliber round can penetrate...I do not know. Some sources quote a US Army manual that says it can penetrate 1 inch (25.4 mm) of armor at a range of 35 meters.

reisen52
12-26-2004, 08:14 PM
The American .50 AP M2 round should penetrate 1 inch (24.5mm) at 100 yards (91m). Armor penetration figures are traditionally measured against a homogeneous "standard" plate at a 90 degree angle. This is the best case.

Actual range & attack angle will reduce the penetration rate as will the use of face hardened armor typically used in aircraft.

That being said I would not want to be sitting behind 8-9mm with 6 or 8 .50's firing at me.

Zeke

XyZspineZyX
12-26-2004, 08:43 PM
I knew a guy from the US army once who claimed that he used an M60 on an M113 APC hulk... the .30 cal rounds apparently had little trouble penetrating the sides of the vehicle. I was skeptical, but it's possible he was telling the truth.

Tanks are sometimes just designed to be tough enough to protect the occupants from small-arms. I don't think anyone in the Pacific was in the habit if lugging .50's around the jungles, so it seems plausible to me that the Jap tanks might have been vulnerable to such.

The Japanese tended to have a "light and mobile" philosophy in equipping their ground forces... Partly because steel was at such a premium for them on the strategic level.

VW-IceFire
12-26-2004, 08:47 PM
Depends on the angle and the area that your hitting on the tank. This is true of all of the tanks regardless of weapon (even the AP cannons on the Stuka G have to be aimed at the top rear section of the turret).

But yeah, taking out the Type 97 with a full convergence .50cal blast is nothing new...

John_Stag
12-26-2004, 09:23 PM
FYI, the .50 cal round was originally developed in WW1 for anti-tank use. Add to that, strikes upon the turret top or engine decking, where the armour is thinnest.If it doesn't kill the crew with turret hits, it stops the tank from moving in an environment riddled with a lot of p1ssed off USMC running around with flamethrowers on their backs.

Hands up, all those who want to stay with their barbe- er, AFV?

Waldo.Pepper
12-26-2004, 10:07 PM
On such a tank it is now modeled fine.

The armor on the top of tanks is one of the thinnest areas. On the engine deck armor if often negligible.

As for the M113. The armor such as it is could be penetrated by an M60 at close range.

All is well here people nothing to see here.

reisen52
12-26-2004, 10:19 PM
>>>I knew a guy from the US army once who claimed that he used an M60 on an M113 APC hulk.<<<

The M-113 is not an AFV & is made of hardened aluminum not steel armor so its not proof against armor piercing ammo. The original concept was a battle taxi to get the infantry in close & have them fight as dismounts.

I have fired US .30 AP through 3/8 steel plate so based on the range & angle the M-60/7.62mm story might be OK.

Zeke

_54th_Target
12-26-2004, 11:14 PM
Hmm! That sure is interesting. I can beat the living daylights out of some aircraft with the .50 caliber and not seem to affect them. So is the tank weaker or does the .50 cal now reflect its true to life capabilities?

Apparently it can shred sheet steel but aircraft aluminium is a problem? LOL

_54th_Target

sapre
12-27-2004, 12:48 AM
Chi-Ha "medium tank"'s short barreled 57mm cannon coudn't penetrate the front armor of M3 "light tank" from the distance of 400m, while M3's long barreled37mm cannon could easily destroy Chi-Ha's front armor from 800m.
There was only 25mm thick armor in the thickest part, and if fired from correct angle, even .30cal bullet could penetrate it.
The armor was so thin, there's story of Sherman tank fired a AP shell to Chi-Ha, it hitted it and it peneterate it so cleanly and easily, it caused no damage! though I don't know if its true or not.
It also had a very noisy engine, and a man with a good year could hear the rumble of the engine from 2km, it was very difficult to turn it on in a hot or cold environment.
It wasn't a bad tank when it came out in 1937, but it was a huge mistake taht IJA used this tank as their MBT for the rest of the war.

Fritzofn
12-27-2004, 02:37 AM
uhm, IJA had better tank's, they even bought a PZ V Panther from the germans, to be used as a model/basis of a new tank. it was never sent though due to the situation of the german reich (War on 4 front's, E, W, N and S)

Enofinu
12-27-2004, 02:42 AM
didnt Us use ball ammo and incendiary ammo only? :P

polkku
12-27-2004, 02:46 AM
Atleast in 2.04 you could destroy PzIII and PzIV with .50cal from high rear. I tested it with those 2x.50cal's in spitIXc or was it IXe.

sapre
12-27-2004, 03:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fritzofn:
uhm, IJA had better tank's, they even bought a PZ V Panther from the germans, to be used as a model/basis of a new tank. it was never sent though due to the situation of the german reich (War on 4 front's, E, W, N and S) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you reffering to Type 3 Chi-Nu tank with 75mm cannon?
only 150 of those were produced and it never saw combat.
Only mass produced Japanese tank were Chi-Ha and Chi-He.
After the battle of Nomonhan IJA planned to install new turret to Chi-Ha since they know 57mm cannon was useless against the Russian BT tank, and new long barreled 47mm cannon was completed in early 1942.
It was twice as more powerful then the old 57mm cannon and it could finally give a adequate damage to M3 light tank, but it was still underpowered against M4 Sherman.
Chi-He was a enhanced design of Chi-Ha, with a thicker armor and better engine, its production was delayed greatly and it only started its production in 1944.
It used the same 47mm cannon of the new Chi-Ha, and it was cleally inadequate against any allied tank of that time.
About 600 was produced, and it saw intense combat during the defence of philippine.

chris455
12-27-2004, 10:48 AM
"Tanks" for all the responses guys (gawd I'm corny)
I had never brewed up a tank before with my .50s, so it was kind of unusual.
I did check the site recommended, and Chi-Ha did have a mere 8mm of upper deck armor. I know a .50 can easily pierce that from my Army days.

As far as the stories about the M113 being pentrated by 7.62mm- don't beleive it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I guess the Chi-ha thing is just another example of the accuracy of the sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Henry_Shrapnel
01-04-2005, 01:15 AM
In fact the Japaneses tanks were rivited together so a round might not have to penetrate to do a lot of damage to the crew inside since the rivits could break loose and ping around like shrapnel.