Different theaters of operations require different approaches to tank design. The prevailing concept of tank design was shaped by combat in Europe—the site of the largest-scale battles—whereas Japanese armored vehicles were, by contrast, always developed with the specific requirements of a particular theater of operations in mind; this pattern is evident in both World War II-era designs and post-war models. However, nothing prevented or prohibited the adoption of successful technical solutions.
4 Likes
Khalkhin Gol was sort of a wake up call for USSR though USSR won it was a lot more messy than desired. If I remember right though post WW2 USSR was more interested in Japanese Naval tech then much of the army. The bulk of Japanese captured equipment would be gifted Mao and this stockpile run down over the years in conflicts.
Soviets did keep a lot of German stuff. Apparently from stuff I heard a good number of the good weapons like machine guns were cleaned up and stored in oil for a rainy day. Japanese equipment I guess was less loved makes sense Japan’s military equipment was good but built for a much different philosophy.
Thanks though for the fact the Japanese were scared of the T1 Heavy. I agree with you bulk of Soviet training and military thinking was based off of the fight with Germany that would become a bit of a complaint by foreign soldiers during the cold war that training did not reflect reality. (Vietnam, Middle Asia, South America, etc.)
2 Likes
Personally, I think the Soviet Union wasn’t particularly interested in Japanese tanks, unlike China
2 Likes
True Japan’s main idea with the Ha-go the but of meany jokes was meant to go where other tanks could not basically a tank if better then no tank. One could say the less then liked vehicle of the recent update the Harimau is a modern Ha-go. If the environment won’t allow a tank to go somewhere its not useful. With infantry if there is any vehicle you cannot stop with your rifle you’re out of luck and ha-go can stop rifle fire but not the later Bazooka.
I think the Ha-go was good for the era and the environment it was meant to go fight on but Japan with a mix of industrial priorities issues and willingness could not build their own domestic version of the Sherman until it was to late.
1 Like
China needed any weapon that could fire the ROC and PRoC. ROC more as USA turned off the weapons tap but if I remember right there was a race to get Japanese equipment Mao was better fit and position to grab more of it Russia helped and anything in storage could blend in as captured. ROC was a bit slower outside of grabbing some ships which was not that useful.
1 Like
Japan did not require a counterpart to the Sherman. The Chi-Nu and Chi-To tanks were designed for the defense of the Japanese islands, not for offensive operations.
3 Likes
The reason the Kuomintang lost the civil war was that Chiang Kai-shek was conserving his army (as best he could) to fight the Communists. Furthermore, during the war, Kuomintang troops were scattered across various provinces; they were encircled and defeated, as the Communists vastly outnumbered them.
Why didn’t the USA help the Republic of China? The simple reason was corruption. The US sent Lend-Lease supplies, but China somehow managed to embezzle the shipments; the US then sought a way out of this situation—and found one (though I’ve forgotten the specific reason why, sorry).
Because of this, Chiang Kai-shek earned the nickname “Cash My Check.”
1 Like
China was also more logistically harder for the Allies during the war. Japan sort of had a easier time bulk of the equipment was even made on the Chinese occupied mainland or close to it in Korea for Japan. People forget in (modern North Korea) was highly industrialized colony of Japan goods could be produced and shipped to the frontlines. Allies had to come from far away and at some times over the Himalayas.
Even post WW2 logistic issues were still a problem Korean War would display that again reason for why Japan had a economic boom making parts or fixing USA equipment.
2 Likes
In principle, Japan did a great deal in Korea: it built factories, created infrastructure, and so on. But people prefer to forget about that.
There where military projects like one aircraft that disappeared at the end of the war. Also some North Korean artillery is thought to be based off of old Japanese projects but it’s unlikely.
GCS-1: Coming to Japan in the next major update will be the GCS-1. This is a self-guided bomb that can lock onto large targets emitting heat within the IR range (for example, ships), which cross into the view of their homing head. This is an entirely new type of guidance that isn’t quite the same as anything else in game bomb wise: it is released like a free-fall bomb, but in flight, it activates a search mode and locks onto the target autonomously. So a unique one for sure! You can look forward to this one on Japanese platforms that carried it soon.
10 Likes
FINALLY
4 Likes
Judging by the text, we won’t have the opportunity to capture a tank, even though the opposite was proven on the old forum.
Them saying “for example, ships” makes me hopeful it will be able to target tanks.
4 Likes
2 Likes
5 Likes
Does anyone have a list of all the planes able to carry the GCS-1 in game? From the top of my head i can only thing of a couple and would like to know everything that could see this being added. Im just hoping they come to my ej kai to give me a reason to finally bring it back out, been a real struggle ever since they added the f18s at the same br.
For aircraft that are known to be able to carry it, that the weapon was actually used/tested on:
- F-4EJ (all variants)
- T-2
- F-1
- F-2 (all variants) - only Mk.82 based GCS-1
Other aircraft in service alongside GCS-1 that have the technical capability (since all it requires aside from Mk.82/JM117 capability is the ability to fit the added weight and dimensions of the kit):
- F-15J (all variants) - only Mk.82 based GCS-1
- future T-1A/B-10 (T-1Bs were upgraded to B-10 in 1965, before GCS-1 existed) - only JM117 based GCS-1
3 Likes
Would be interesting to see on the F-1 and T-2, bringing them into escalation may be quite a bit of fun if not for the lack of countermeasures. I guess we are all hoping for the ability to track tanks then.
Do we know how many bombs the F-4ej and ej kai could carry?
2 Likes
Up to 13x 750lb (JM117) GCS-1, or 15x 500lb (Mk.82) GCS-1
F-2 in theory could carry more (in numbers, not weight) though, up to 18x 500lb GCS-1s
1 Like