Yeah, on second thought it would be a different multi-vehicle setup compared to the ones they just added since control over targeting and guidance is divided between two vehicles, rather than being only one complete vehicle.
I would love to get the tent version modeled in game lol.
so here is everything i can think of right now.
type 95 heavy experiential
Type 73 (x3 Type 62)
chi ha kai prototype
In addition, additional armor plates were tested on the prototype as skirts on the upper side armor. Apparently, the effect was minimal, and the concept was not pursued further.
Spoiler
chi ha infantry carrier
chi ha kai commander
commander of the 4th Company of the 9th Regiment, the “Donryu” (Captain Yoshimura Shigeo, company commander)
chi ha 9th Regiment
Ho-Ro prototype
only visual difference I can find is the ammo box above the engine.
Chi-Yu Early
Chi-Yu Late
Spoiler
Type 97 experimental flamethrower tank number 2 (Chi-Ha flamethrower)
I saw it listed as Ka-Ho which I’m confused about.
the hybrid chi ha’s
Ha-go float
M41A1 Higashi-Fuji (crowd control)
Type 96 AGL mounted on top of a Type 96 APC
Spoiler
Tsuchida’s Chi-Ha Kai
M24 Japan National Safety Forces
just extra 50 cals
Spoiler
got much more but ill upload them later
8 Likes
Is the M24 actually a different thing? I was under the impression that the in-game M24 and M4A3E8 are both wrongly modeled, in that both of them should be lacking smoke mortars which were replaced by an extra radio set; of which is clearly visible in those photographs with the extra antenna where the smoke mortar previously was located.
1 Like
should be the same as the normal tt one just with extra 50 cal and cosmetics. imagine it as a premium like the is2 revenge or the M2A4 (1st Arm.Div.)
1 Like
more stuff to add
Type 90 Kantou Logistics Depot. Camp Kasumigaura (also 4 other camps)
Type 90 Camp Higashichitose
Type 10 Nagaoka and Camp Kengun
Some of the sources say this is one of the type 10 prototypes converted but I’m not sure if its true.
Spoiler
Type 10 Camp Higashichitose
Type 96 HATM
Type 74 9th Tank Batt
not sure if you added it in the type 94/98 folder
Toyota GB (Type 98)
Mitsubishi Type 73 Light Truck Kyū with a rear-mounted Sumitomo M2 heavy machine
Spoiler
type 92 prototype
Spoiler
Type 92 Mine Clearing Vehicle (i’m sure it can send tanks to orbit with the size of the rockets)
But it would end up like a meme event tank
Spoiler
M3 75mm
Ho Ni II Prototype
credit to @BSpiel8-live
Vickers Mark E Type B
Vickers Mark E Type B with Marconi G2A radio (extended turret)
Spoiler
M110A2 Self-Defense Forces exercises (not sure which one it belonged to)
Spoiler
Type 74 62式戦車 / Roku-Ni Shiki Sensha
Shi-Ki command tank prototype
Spoiler
Type 97 Chi-Ha prototypes with experimental suspensions (second Chi-Ha prototype 1937)
Spoiler
STB-1
Spoiler
STB-3
Spoiler
Komatsu GSR 105
Again i got more that ill upload later
4 Likes
6 Likes
Wish the Chi-Se was an option. It was meant to use the same ho-ri chassis, but it was only on paper iirc.
2 Likes
Demonstration of Thai armored infantry tactical operations by the 2nd Infantry Division, King’s Guard (1989 footage)
5 Likes
Are the tanks modified with observation platforms actually capable of turning their turrets? The platforms are almost flush to the rear of the turrets.
Also, I don’t think the Type 92 mine clearer would work even as a meme. The rocket is just a carrier, it isn’t an explosive in itself. It separates mid-flight to release the a chain of 26 explosives.
Type 73 with an M2 shouldn’t be added, at least in my opinion, for the same reasons I outlined earlier when explaining why I purposely left out the Type 96 WAPC and AAV7A1.
M3 75-mm is already included. The Philippines had T12 GMCs, pre-production M3 GMCs, which utilized smaller gunshields.
3 Likes
Hard to tell if that black thing isn’t attached. If it’s not maybe it can turn 10-20 degrees? Or maybe barely missing the platform but limited to 180 degrees. There are videos of it off roading with people on it.
Yes I’m aware of that but if the target is close enough you hit it directly if it’s farther away you do the explosives thing.
“(which after falling to the ground detonate simultaneously, destroying nearby mines and explosives. This rapidly clears a path that is over five meters wide and a few hundred meters long (some sources say about 200m, but others are unspecific).”
Couldn’t find the explosive mass of each bomblet/chain explosive but if it’s enough to kill a tank why not have it in game? Would be like the Churchill AVRE Petard and sturmtiger.
Fair enough.
Don’t really see the point on not adding it. Make one a premium/sqaud/event and the other a tt one. Yes I understand it’s similar but still good for line ups.
1 Like
Hard to tell if that black thing isn’t attached. If it’s not maybe it can turn 10-20 degrees? Or maybe barely missing the platform but limited to 180 degrees. There are videos of it off roading with people on it.
It might be able to make a full turn, just based off of turning the turrets in-game and seeing where they go.
Couldn’t find the explosive mass of each bomblet/chain explosive but if it’s enough to kill a tank why not have it in game? Would be like the Churchill AVRE Petard and sturmtiger.
Eh. I still don’t think it would really work. Even the Petard, for as limp as it is, still evaporates anything it touches unless you get Gaijined. The Type 92 would not, since there’s no fuze to set off the explosives. You would have to time the manual detonation correctly. It’s a fun idea, but it’s just too left-field from anything in-game.
Don’t really see the point on not adding it. Make one a premium/sqaud/event and the other a tt one. Yes I understand it’s similar but still good for line ups.
Oh, I see what you mean now. That “M3 75 mm Howitzer Carriage” is a misidentified T12. You can tell due to the gunshield, though it’s admittedly hard to make out with how grainy the photograph is.
The easy way to distinguish between them is that the M3 GMC’s gunshield has an angle going upwards to form its angular roof, while the T12 GMC’s gunshield is straight. Additionally, the soldier to the very left (from his perspective) has his legs going under the gunshield while part of his body is behind it. This wouldn’t be possible on the M3 GMC due to the gunshield extending slightly over the side, and the presence of side plating. The T12 GMC lacks that plating, instead just being composed of a singular flat plate with a cavity at the bottom corners of it, which would allow that soldier in the photograph to swing his arms underneath the gunshield while leaning against it.
You can see what I’m talking about in the photograph below. The cavities where he’s swinging his leg underneath are clearly visible.
Photograph of T12 GMC
I’m not aware of an instance where the Japanese could have even captured an M3 GMC. They weren’t deployed against the Japanese until the Battle of Saipan, and by that point, nearly every single battle afterwards was a losing battle for the Japanese, often times to very lopsided degrees. The GMCs that were initially deployed to the Philippines, which the Japanese did capture en masse, were all pre-production T12.
So, given that and that the “M3” GMC in those photographs are clearly T12 GMCs, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that they ever captured, and much less ever used, an M3 GMC.
2 Likes
I’m trying to find more up-close photos.
dam no meme tank then ):
got more captured vehicles like these:
2 Likes
I was trying to figure out which of the captured vehicles they actually used. I know that they didn’t use the Vickers Mk. E they captured from China, they were relegated to being displayed as war prizes in mainland Japan. That isn’t surprising considering how outdated the tanks were by that point, even compared to the Ha-Go.
They may have used the AMD 35 Coloniale and T-26s. As far as I’m aware, there’s no actual recorded combat action with either of them, but they were found in Japanese depots where they would have had to have been moved around; the AMD 35 Coloniale being found in Indochina (iirc?) and the T-26s being found in Burma.
I wasn’t able to figure out what they did with the BA-6s or the BA-10s, or the BT-5s. Most of them are in a state of disrepair in those photographs, so I went under the assumption that if any were captured, it was only for evaluation purposes.
I also wasn’t able to find a clear record of what they had done with the T12 GMC they had captured, but I kind of just assumed that they used them like they did the M3 Stuart, which they formed entire units out of how many they captured at the Philippines. They used a few Light Mk. VIBs they captured from Malaysia or Hong Kong, they were found at Japanese workshops by the end of the war and iirc at least one was used in occupied Hong Kong.
1 Like
Since I have yet to find the other photo I was looking for regarding the Thai 2.75-inch anti-aircraft jeep, I shall post this instead.
It is not vehicle-mounted yet, but sports a rather interesting design fielding what appears to be two Barrett M82 anti-material rifles. Not for use against infantry, but drones.
While I don’t really know anything about the inclusion of the Barretts at the moment, the EOS appears to be identical to the one currently used alongside Thailand’s 40mm Bofors batteries.
AAG_th Diary: Thai Army tests anti-aircraft artillery fire Bofors 40mm L/70 OES Welding New Domestically Developed Fire Control System
4 Likes
I remember they used them like the stuarts
3 Likes
Nooooooooo
6 Likes