O-I: Japan's Super Heavy Tank

[fufubear 6,705]

It would have worked similar to the jagdtiger in the sense that it's mobility didn't matter, it wasn't going to be leading charges anywhere.

[MercedesBenzW123 8,535]

So a sumo wrestler on tracks?

[Tolenka 383]

 

Exactly, their smaller tanks did the job much better than a super heavy could ever do, hence why none were built. It would have been a solution to a problem that really didn't exist.

Well, until allies came, japanese tanks had a hard time when meeting anti tank weapons. When those allies came, japanese tanks suffered nightmares until they produced tanks with good guns.
The O-I so far would have been like the jagdtiger to the west-front- a nightmare you wouldnt want to meet.

 

 

Are you suggesting the O-I series would have been great for the Island Hopping warfare that was happening in the Pacific? If so you need to rethink why that would be a horrible idea, namely transportation of said tanks.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Tolenka

[MercedesBenzW123 8,535]

Are you suggesting the O-I series would have been great for the Island Hopping warfare that was happening in the Pacific? If so you need to rethink why that would be a horrible idea, namely transportation of said tanks.

Anything bigger than a medium would be a bad idea for island hopping

[Tolenka 383]

Anything bigger than a medium would be a bad idea for island hopping

Exactly, Stuarts and Shermans fit that rule quite well for the Americans, likewise the Type 97's, Chi-Nu's and so forth for the Japanese. 

[fufubear 6,705]

Are you suggesting the O-I series would have been great for the Island Hopping warfare that was happening in the Pacific? If so you need to rethink why that would be a horrible idea, namely transportation of said tanks.

He's suggesting that it would be good for the defense of such islands already conquered by Japan. Edited March 19, 2016 by fufubear

[LORDOFKASE 100]

But then it's just cheaper to dig holes in the ground and throw some logs over.  A tank exists as a maneuver weapon, the armor, engine etc are all very expensive.  If you need a bunker you build a bunker as that's actually quite cheap in the long run.

Besides getting an O-1 off of a ship and onto one of those islands would have been interesting.  And an O-1 type target would have done very poorly in the face of airstrikes and naval gunfire (or at least much worse than the cheaper hole in ground).

 

It wasn't a good idea, and rightfully belongs in the WTF tank file with the Maus, M6 etc, etc.

[Tolenka 383]

He's suggesting that it would be good for the defense of such islands already conquered by Japan.

Exactly, island hopping which it wouldn't be. I was going to type something more lengthy but refer to LORDOFKASE's post above.

 

 

But then it's just cheaper to dig holes in the ground and throw some logs over.  A tank exists as a maneuver weapon, the armor, engine etc are all very expensive.  If you need a bunker you build a bunker as that's actually quite cheap in the long run.

Besides getting an O-1 off of a ship and onto one of those islands would have been interesting.  And an O-1 type target would have done very poorly in the face of airstrikes and naval gunfire (or at least much worse than the cheaper hole in ground).

 

It wasn't a good idea, and rightfully belongs in the WTF tank file with the Maus, M6 etc, etc.

This.

[fufubear 6,705]

Problem is a hole and logs are ineffective against cannons. Maneuvering a tank on a pacific island is also very hard so the maneuver aspect is negated. All that would matter is HE charge and frontal armor. Close airstrikes were not very common during ww2 so we can rule that out and every target would be equally decimated by naval gunfire so that's not a weakness of the O-I.

[Tolenka 383]

Problem is a hole and logs are ineffective against cannons. Maneuvering a tank on a pacific island is also very hard so the maneuver aspect is negated. All that would matter is HE charge and frontal armor. Close airstrikes were not very common during ww2 so we can rule that out and every target would be equally decimated by naval gunfire so that's not a weakness of the O-I.

 

 

 

Close air support was very common in the Pacific, the Marines that would be the first on the ground would have little in the way of support otherwise.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Tolenka

[fufubear 6,705]

Close air support was very common in the Pacific, the Marines that would be the first on the ground would have little in the way of support otherwise.

Only problem is the corsair had predetermined targets. They couldn't call for support when they would stumble across a heavily armored vehichle.

[MercedesBenzW123 8,535]

Only problem is the corsair had predetermined targets. They couldn't call for support when they would stumble across a heavily armored vehichle.

With such a threat don't you think a few Corsairs might be doing CAP with Rockets until a huge barn tank was called out sort like a CAP/Strike thingy?

[fufubear 6,705]

With such a threat don't you think a few Corsairs might be doing CAP with Rockets until a huge barn tank was called out sort like a CAP/Strike thingy?

Good luck seeing it through all the foliage of the jungle.

[MercedesBenzW123 8,535]

Good luck seeing it through all the foliage of the jungle.

Can the marines shoot it so the pilots get a huge icon over the tank?

[fufubear 6,705]

Can the marines shoot it so the pilots get a huge icon over the tank?

How are you going to tell the pilot what you are doing? This isn't the modern day remember.

[LORDOFKASE 100]

Imma gonna let youtalk, but first:

1. The hole in the ground is clearly not appreciated in this thread.  Looking at the outcome of the various beach landings, lots of holes in the ground survived, or when they did not, an O-1 would be just as destroyed (the larger emplacements usually got pretty well wrecked, or beaten up to some level of being degraded).  The simple sand and log bunker for instance proved very resistant to HE shells, because in all but a direct hit the materials employed in the construction would flex with the explosion and adsorb much of the impact.  They also have the advantage of being camouflaged much more than a tank would be.    They were more vulnerable to direct fire from larger US tank guns (notably the 37 MM on the M3 was widely regarded as inadequate which is why the Shermans with their 75 MMs became so popular) but the O-1 was not especially well armored at the end of the day and it too would have suffered from tank fire with the added disadvantage of being a much more obvious target.  Also the US only did not deploy 76 MM or 3 inch gun equipped vehicles to the Pacific for lack of targets.  Heavier anti-tank equipment would have started showing up in short order had Japanese armor been a threat.

2. In regards to CAS:

a. US ground forces often included a forward air controller element (different names for different services, but generally someone trained, often a pilot himself with a radio for talking to aircraft).  CAS was not as common as it is now, but there was a FAC element that could control CAS as required.

b. Often a lot of these "predetermined targets" were less "YOU MUST STRIKE THIS ONE BUNKER OR YOU WILL BE SHOT ON LANDING" and much more "engage enemy forces located vicinity Hill 123 etc."  An O-1 would be hard pressed to avoid the sort of attention a massive tank draws in this event, and it was slow enough and large enough to be a reasonably easy target for rockets or bombs.

c. Polarbear isn't entirely too far off base, often CAS elements would during especially high intensity operations simply loiter waiting for someone to call targets.  



In regards to the last two posts:

1. Targets were often marked by smoke or WP in the event they were under cover.  

2. The the stereotype of jungle covered pacific islands is one of those that really needs to go away.  Often on smaller islands there'd simply be nothing left after the opening bombardment, and it strikes me odd that anyone thinks a 100 ton tank would handle the especially uneven and soft soil of the jungle in a manner that could be described as anything but sinking up to the top of the tracks and not going anywhere ever again.  

[fufubear 6,705]

1. The only bunkers that ever really survived were the ones that were specially dug in to resist explosions. Random bunkers did not. The log and sand bunkers would have been destroyed easily. You can in fact camouflage tanks pretty well its what the Japanese actually did to some pretty good effect. The o-I would have been mostly immune to the 75mm Sherman from the front.

2. If you went out with bombs then you most likely had a hard target that you needed to engage. I don't think a tank would be a good enough excuse as to why you expended your munitions early. Rockets were not as effective at killing tanks as this game makes you believe.

1. Fair point, but this would work only if the pilot understands the signal and has extra munitions.


2. Yes there were open fields on the islands but seeing that the O-I us a movable bunker why would it sit in an open field? Wouldn't it make more sense for it to sit in a thick part of a jungle and watch a road or something. An area that has little maneuver room to prevent tanks from getting to its side?

Of course this is assuming that they got the ground pressure to a satisfactory limit so talking about the tank having trouble maneuvering is a irrelevant.

[LORDOFKASE 100]

1. You should read up on Tarawa and some of the other Pacific battles.  Japanese fieldwork was quite good and presented a number of problems.  One of the reasons why the Americans used Medium tanks so extensively was because of these bunkers, they were very difficult to knock out with artillery fire and required heavy direct fire hits to be killed for certain.  

As to "good effect" for Japanese dug in tanks, not so much, you only have to look at the death of the 2nd Tank Division to see those tactics didn't amount to terribly much.  They performed better than their mobile brethren by a fair margin but a similar gun emplaced in the earth itself would have done equal to if not better.  And had the O-1 shown up, then too would have the 76 MM Shermans and those could penetrate the O-1 from the front at ranges well in excess of most engagement windows.

2. Depends on the mission.  If they're attacking enemy targets to support US troops, you'd better believe they're going to murder a big ole' tank.  Flight commanders had some discretion in targeting, this was intentional largely because it was recognized from mission launch to time over target the situation may have changed.  And again often the mission was simply find something Japanese in this area and murder it.  A big huge tank is an entirely worthy target for that sort of effort.

As far as rockets, again you wouldn't have to kill the O-1.  Even breaking a track would be a disaster given the massive size of the vehicle.  Because we're video games nerds it's not really something we put thought into, but if the O-1 was immobilized it's likely not going anywhere for a long time.

As to my second 1:

That's why forward air control parties exist.  The Marines made a very big deal out of them, and the Army too.  It's not quite A-10s stacked up to 30,000 or something, but there was the capability, and at numerous places across the pacific forward observers were able to employ both aviation and naval gunfire effectively against various threats (not the Pacific, but Anzio is a great example of this coordination piece).

And as to 2 I don't even know where to start.  The O-1's basic design all but ensures it's going to sink into ground harder than concrete so it's really moot.  Most of the jungles couldn't support any tanks, let alone a 100 ton monster tank anyway.  And why the heck would a very slow, very expensive tank that's going to effectively never move again once it's in place make more sense than a whole mess of cheaper anti-tank guns dug in deep and good?

 

The Japanese gave up on the O-1 because they realized it sucked.  Simple as that.  

[fufubear 6,705]

1. So what would make the O-I more vulnerable to artillery fire? If the O-I forced the usmc to bring in the 76 mm Sherman then that means it did it's job.

2. What makes a tank a better target from a bunker? Id anything they are the same worth.

1. The big problem with Rockets was the accuracy. Contrary to what games will make you think, pilots did not fly 2 inches from there target and then release their rockets. Hitting even the O-I could prove to be tricky.

1. Ok

2. I said this is assuming they had suitable ground pressure. The reason the tank was abandoned was because it's ground pressure was poor and it sunk into the ground. Had they managed to keep the ground pressure low they might have actually went through with it. Also the tank would not have only gone to pacific islands they probably would have also gone to China because by late in the war China was fielding M4 Shermans.

[Nomad_Gaming 6,221]

1. So what would make the O-I more vulnerable to artillery fire? If the O-I forced the usmc to bring in the 76 mm Sherman then that means it did it's job.

2. What makes a tank a better target from a bunker? Id anything they are the same worth.

1. The big problem with Rockets was the accuracy. Contrary to what games will make you think, pilots did not fly 2 inches from there target and then release their rockets. Hitting even the O-I could prove to be tricky.

1. Ok

2. I said this is assuming they had suitable ground pressure. The reason the tank was abandoned was because it's ground pressure was poor and it sunk into the ground. Had they managed to keep the ground pressure low they might have actually went through with it. Also the tank would not have only gone to pacific islands they probably would have also gone to China because by late in the war China was fielding M4 Shermans.

 

pretty much this. Though, as Mai's article points out, the fate of that vehicle between postponement of the project and its destruction is rather uncertain.

 

it's also worthwhile to point out that the Japanese had a fair amount of production vehicles and prototypes that were withheld from deployment due to concerns about the Operation Downfall, the planned US invasion of the Japanese mainland.

[LORDOFKASE 100]

Re: 76 MM 

It'd actually be a mix of USMC and Army Shermans, given by number the larger element of US ground forces in theater was from the Army.  However upon reflection deploying 76 MMs to the pacific would be doubtful.  The US Army in Europe opted to stick with the 75 MM even with the Tiger (which is many times over a better tank than the O-1) prior to D-Day, and it was only when it was apparent the Panther wasn't just an alternate form of heavy tank did the larger gun become something accepted.  An O-1 might have triggered some more M10 deployments though although they were already in use as bunker busters so not a lot of change there.  

In either event the expense of shipping and supporting a massive tank to random pacific atolls in order to force US forces to use a tank that's already going to be in production, with almost the same logistical footprint as the previous one is...not much of a victory at all.

Re: Bunker vs tank

Visibility.  A well built emplacement is going to effectively be inside the terrain itself, covered in soil with a mess of greenery above it.  In that regard finding them was usually a matter of looking for tracers coming out, or dropping on smoke/WP fired by friendly forces.  A tank, even a well dug in one still needs to have it's turrets out of the terrain.  And frankly if you're burying a tank, why didn't you just build some turrets and call it a day?  Also if the tank is so much of a threat like ya'll seem to think the O-1 was, clearly it's going to be on the short list for atomic bombs level priority or something.  

As far as worth, the amount of investment in a tank is a lot higher than a bunker.  Killing tanks does more damage than killing most bunkers

Re: Rockets

CAS is also not limited to 30 seconds before it returns to its tank to finish a round.  Again if it's the one monster tank on the island, it's going to get more than one pass.  And it's a slow, big, stupid target that couldn't go evasive without burying itself and sinking into the earth's core.

Re: Ground pressure

Riddle me this batman:

How would they fix the ground pressure?

In other tanks, the answer was usually a totally new suspension, greatly widened tracks etc etc.   I will contend both of these were not viable options for the O-1 given it's already massive size and the additional weight penalty (as ground pressure is just how well the tank "floats" the mass of larger tracks or more elaborate suspension still exists).  And given that, it's like pointing out the Germans would have been able to launch massive bomber raids destroying all of New York if only they fixed the range problem on the HE 111.  It's not a problem that could be overcome with the existing design.

And further, why even go with a stupid design like the O-1?  Virtually every other country that used tanks with multiple turrets abandoned them very quickly.  Why operate a tank that will not be able to cross literally any bridges that existed in the greater Pacific-Asia area?  Why even bother with something that uses several normal tank's worth of not at all common armor plate, and the fuel Japan simply does not have enough of?  

The O-1 rightfully belongs in the scrapheap with all the various super-heavy tank designs of the 1930's-1940's.  The only thing novel about it was it was still making the same mistakes the British, French, and Soviets had already figured out about super-heavies well into the war (the Maus is stupid, but Nazi super projects tended to be stupid as a rule, however it did go for a unitary turret at least).  Super heavy tanks appeal to the inner nerd in all of us that wishes they had their own death star, but they were never practical and as weapons of war were well out performed by medium tanks.  

[panzerpaddel 793]

Im wonderin why we would discuss if this tank would´ve done good or not. Of course you dont use it in a rollercoaster...and neither for charges.Such tanks would´ve been good for defending strategic points with small numbers.
The maus would never be used to charge with 20kmh, jagdtiger attacked out of the unseen, Ferdinands only in defensiv-positions later (after they recognized that ferdi sucks in attacks)
Soo, the O I would be most likely to be used like this.

Just readed this comment above...

Bunkers can not be moved. Tanks can drive.
Bunkers, once spotted are a matter of time, they wont drive away.
And if bunkers were superior to tanks everyone would have placed 999 tons of bunkers everywhere..because they have suuch a big advantage!

"Also if the tank is so much of a threat like ya'll seem to think the O-1 was, clearly it's going to be on the short list for atomic bombs level priority or something. " And this is arguing on the lowest level -.- ...that is dumb in a way it turns me angry xD

How would they fix the ground pressure?
With larger tracks you genius? Oo This thing already had large tracks. Just look at the pictures

Why are you arguing like japanese commanders are dumb as hell and would place it on the silver tablet in an open field with many little mountains just for fun...your M10 is just good as long as it can act without enemys attention. with such a bad armor you might wont be able to withstand 3,7cm guns of japan

Dont get me wrong,I dont think tanks like these would have had any impact on the war. only at single battles maybe, but the point is:
It was produced and neither if it was useless or good it belongs into the game!

That T95/28 is ingame too, designed as a driving bunker, Maus, heck the SU100Y is there too without reasonable armor...


 

Edited March 19, 2016 by panzerpaddel

[fufubear 6,705]

76mm
If it forced the US to deploy more specialised vehichles then it served it's purpose because that means it was so much of a threat that the US needed to deploy special vehichles to get rid of it.

Bunker vs tank

A well camouflaged emplacement will only be able to look in one direction and if it is really inside the ground will have a hard time fitting heavy weapons. The O-I will be more visible but it would have more armor to take hits from other tanks and would have heavy guns that would be capable of knocking out said tanks. The keywords are most bunkers.

Rockets
The tank wouldn't be sitting out in the Open and it would have been camouflaged while it was inactive. This tank would most likely get less passes than most of the real bunkers on the island.

Ground pressure.
There were weight saving features they could have implemented along with widening the tracks. It's not comparable to bombing new York with he 111's because that kind of range is pretty much impossible for a bomber.

Those other tanks were not used in the same way this tank would have been used so it's not exactly comparable. Seeing that this tank would have been stationary most of the time it could have actually faired pretty well with its multiple turrets.

[LORDOFKASE 100]

Im wonderin why we would discuss if this tank would´ve done good or not. Of course you dont use it in a rollercoaster...and neither for charges.Such tanks would´ve been good for defending strategic points with small numbers.
The maus would never be used to charge with 20kmh, jagdtiger attacked out of the unseen, Ferdinands only in defensiv-positions later (after they recognized that ferdi sucks in attacks)
Soo, the O I would be most likely to be used like this.

Just readed this comment above...

Bunkers can not be moved. Tanks can drive.
Bunkers, once spotted are a matter of time, they wont drive away.
And if bunkers were superior to tanks everyone would have placed 999 tons of bunkers everywhere..because they have suuch a big advantage!

"Also if the tank is so much of a threat like ya'll seem to think the O-1 was, clearly it's going to be on the short list for atomic bombs level priority or something. " And this is arguing on the lowest level -.- ...that is dumb in a way it turns me angry xD

How would they fix the ground pressure?
With larger tracks you genius? Oo This thing already had large tracks. Just look at the pictures

Why are you arguing like japanese commanders are dumb as hell and would place it on the silver tablet in an open field with many little mountains just for fun...your M10 is just good as long as it can act without enemys attention. with such a bad armor you might wont be able to withstand 3,7cm guns of japan

Dont get me wrong,I dont think tanks like these would have had any impact on the war. only at single battles maybe, but the point is:
It was produced and neither if it was useless or good it belongs into the game!

That T95/28 is ingame too, designed as a driving bunker, Maus, heck the SU100Y is there too without reasonable armor...


 

Sigh.  

The large tank destroyer type vehicles you described made sense because they were the ultimate answer to how much armor and how big of a gun you could place on an existing chassis.  They didn't bother with extra stupid turrets, and even then they were often too heavy to be practical.  If you needed a very large cannon that could handle being shot at by enemy threat vehicles then yeah, good to go.  The O-1 strapped a bunch of crap it didn't need, while sporting an armor array better suited to a late war medium tank in regards to thickness.  It's grossly inefficient.  If the Japanese really needed a large gun heavy tank, they could have done a lot better without building a land battleship and done something more akin to the Tiger (again, multiple turret vehicles were widely shown to be a bad idea by 1940, a large single main gun is vastly superior to any other configuration which is why to this day literally every tank built has one large cannon, with supporting MGs/rarely autocannons).

You can find uses for an O-1 if you had one, but you can't justify building an O-1 in the first place if you get my drift.  

Re: Nuclear target

Look, either it was dangerous enough to be worth diverting a plane or two to murder or it was too crappy to justify shooting at.  That's really kind of the balance there.  If the O-1 was a serious threat to US troops, then it would have become a worthy target to CAS or other strike packages in the area, unless it wasn't a threat in which case why bother having an O-1 in the first place?  Looking at the fate of German armor in the European theater too, it drew all sorts of fire, even from planes not tasked with ground missions simply because it was there, and it was a valid military target.  So blithely assuming that strike packages will just fly by the O-1 because it's merely a tank strikes me as supremely silly.

Re: Bunkers

Again.  Sit down and read some actual history on the pacific fighting.  The Japanese made extensive use of fortifications and they were many times over more effective than Japanese tanks ever were.  Are they inherently superior to tanks?  Not really in the wider spectrum of things.  But if you're an industrially poor nation with limited logistical means, fighting in terrain that is not-condusive to mechanized movement, often with significant chokepoints, the answer is not to build a massive 100 ton tank, deploy it through frankly the most effective submarine campaign in history, and support it on some islands that lacks any sort of meaningful insfastructure.

We get all hot and bothered about tanks, but we view them in a silly video game vacuum deprived of any other variables.  An O-1 deployed anywhere it'd have seen action in the Pacific is right around WW2 era battle mechs jump jetting from US hovercarriers lack of realism.  

Re: Tracks

Even with large tracks, it still sank a meter into fairly normal soil.  I'm doubtful larger tracks would be possible given their already massive size.

Re: Japanese armor commanders

Frankly, they were pretty bad.  Show me one well executed Japanese tank attack and I'll show you at least four I can name off the top of my head that were massive disasters.  Japanese armor doctrine never really left that weird mid 1930's Cavalry mindset, and frequently led to total destruction of Japanese armor units while trying to treat well defended US positions (or well supported offenses) like they were Chinese peasants without guns.  

Continuing on however:

 

 

76mm
If it forced the US to deploy more specialised vehichles then it served it's purpose because that means it was so much of a threat that the US needed to deploy special vehichles to get rid of it.

Bunker vs tank

A well camouflaged emplacement will only be able to look in one direction and if it is really inside the ground will have a hard time fitting heavy weapons. The O-I will be more visible but it would have more armor to take hits from other tanks and would have heavy guns that would be capable of knocking out said tanks. The keywords are most bunkers.

Rockets
The tank wouldn't be sitting out in the Open and it would have been camouflaged while it was inactive. This tank would most likely get less passes than most of the real bunkers on the island.

Ground pressure.
There were weight saving features they could have implemented along with widening the tracks. It's not comparable to bombing new York with he 111's because that kind of range is pretty much impossible for a bomber.

Those other tanks were not used in the same way this tank would have been used so it's not exactly comparable. Seeing that this tank would have been stationary most of the time it could have actually faired pretty well with its multiple turrets.

 

Re: 76 MM

Except those aren't specialist vehicles.  They're standard issue tanks.  Forcing an enemy to totally redo their armor force would be one thing.  But sending 76 MM armed Shermans to the Pacific would be just a matter of loading the trains leaving the factory that were going to the west coast with 76 MM armed Shermans too instead of just the 75 MM models.  And if the ultimate outcome of building a very expensive tank to be knocked out by US tank fire and lose the place it was defending anyway is a victory, then I think you might need a dictionary.  

Re: Bunkers.  Again.

Look at how the Japanese actually fought in the pacific, then get back to me.  For the cost of one O-1 you likely could have fortified an entire island or so.  Do some actual research, and come back to me because it's readily apparent you don't know much about the Pacific campaign or the actual Japanese army.  Field works were effective, or certainly more so than an O-1 would have ever been.

Re: Reekits

Lawl.  That's all I'm going to say to that.  Again, read up some actual history, and tell me when this magic inactive phase was going to occur during a fully involved US invasion.  

Re: Ground pressure

Name some of those weight saving features, and explain to me how they would have been effective on a tank that already sank into regular old earth without all of it's armor mounted.

I'll be waiting.

[fufubear 6,705]

76mm
The fact that the tank wasn't common in the area would make it a specialist vehichle. They would need to change their supply lines to mix in some 76 mm Shermans and 76mm ammo.

Bunkers
The bunkers used were effective but they could only really look in one direction, couldn't be moved, and wouldn't have been as successful at destroying tanks.

Reekits
It would have been inactive if no enemy forces were near the tank? This tank wasn't going to be leading charges on invading troops like the other Japanese tanks did.

Ground pressure
They could have removed some of the armor inside the tank (there were some kind of armored doors inside the tank), they could have thinned the rear armor, they could have deleted a turret, etc.