Wow thanks!
New medium tank Kou? Is this the Chi-Ri?
EDIT: actually it’s probably Chi-To since earlier in the thread it was mentioned Ka-To is derived from Chi-To
I always assumed it was the same gun, why bother developing two 105mm high velocity cannons with similar performance?
The second batch of images is a Chi-Ha. The hull and suspension is identical. I think it’s just a normal Chi-Ha, but carrying something atop the turret. It could have also been moving while the picture was taken, which would explain why the turret appears so blurry.
I don’t know about the “heavy tanks.” Though, at the least, I don’t think the bottom ones are converted Ro-Go. They have nothing in common with a Ro-Go; their suspensions and hulls are completely different. They look more like some purpose-built engineering vehicle, which Japan produced numerous types over the war. Whatever vehicle is in the hangar doesn’t have a clear turret, since it’s too dark to actually identify any defining features of it. The “cone” object atop the tank could very easily be something behind it rather than actually something a part of it, for instance, just as easily as it could actually be a part of it. There’s no way to tell without seeing another image of the vehicle.
So, out of all of those; the first one is absolutely just the first Ha-Go prototype; the second one is most likely just a normal Chi-Ha that was moving, contributing to the blur that makes it turret appear weird; and the last one I have no idea.
The third prototype of the Ha-Go? Only two types of Ha-Go prototypes were ever produced: one first prototype and three second prototypes. Nothing beyond that exists.
The first prototype was modified once between June and September of 1934 to reduce its weight, so if we were to distinguish them, we could say there are three forms. However, this is not considered a separate prototype. (It is generally referred to as the Kai (改修型))
The second prototype, produced in November 1935, already had a machine gun mounted on the turret.
From the photos, you can see that a machine gun port already exists at the rear.
In general, it can be distinguished from the mass-production model by its smaller bulge and the fact that it has only one return roller.
Thanks for the information. I hadn’t managed to find a picture of the second batch of prototypes before so I was going off of whatever I could find online about it. I guess between the usually dodgy translations that Google Translate gives, I may have misread something; either that or some confusion over the first prototype and its later weight reduction being conflated into three prototypes, including the actual second prototype, might’ve lead to that.
Yes, that’s correct. Kou (甲) refers to the Chi-To, and Otsu (乙) refers to the Chi-Ri.
I’m not entirely sure, but they always developed tank guns and anti-tank guns separately.
For example, although the first prototype of the Na-To used the same 75mm caliber gun, it was completely incompatible with the Chi-To’s gun except for the ammunition.
Because the military later demanded compatibility between the two, the production of the second prototype was delayed by nearly six months.
However, in the case of the Ka-To gun, such issues likely didn’t occur, as its design process was shared with the Ho-Ri gun from the early stages to ensure compatibility.
As a side note, the idea that the Ka-To gun and the Ho-Ri gun used different ammunition is merely speculation. This assumption stems from the difference in the overall length of their HE shells as recorded in reports: 1230mm for the Ho-Ri gun and 1195.3mm for the Ka-To gun.
However, since the design drawings for the Ho-Ri’s shells have not been discovered, we cannot be certain.
What is certain is that the Ka-To gun did not require a loading assist mechanism, so the rear part of the gun must have differed significantly from that of the Ho-Ri.
That’s right, I guess the precedent was always there.
At least in theory, total shell length shouldn’t matter too much since the extra length would just sit inside the barrel and breech just fine. Similar to how in (some) guns, especially revolvers, you can use a shorter cartridge without any problems if it’s of the same caliber.
To add a few more details, the claim that this photo was taken at Yasukuni Shrine is incorrect. The author of the book, David Lister, seems to have speculated that the photo was taken by the British military attaché, Major Wards, and brought back to the UK. However, this photo was in fact officially taken at the Army Ordnance School (兵器学校) during Army Commemoration Day in 1935. At that time, the second prototype had not yet been produced, so this was the latest model available for display.
The vehicle in the photo is the first prototype (Kai) with reduced weight. Since it had just completed practical testing at the Cavalry School, it is painted in camouflage—unlike the more commonly known photos of the same vehicle.
Additionally, the full version of this photo was later published and distributed in October 1935 in “Eikō: Commemorative Photo Album of Army Munitions Inspected by His Majesty” (『栄光: 陸軍軍需資材天覧記念写真帖』). Similar photos were also later distributed to the public through army pictorials and related publications, so it likely wouldn’t have been difficult for British intelligence to obtain a copy.
I don’t think David Lister had any malicious intent, but to be honest, I wouldn’t recommend using his book when studying Japanese tanks. While he researched a wide range of Allied documents, he largely ignored the Japanese records that still survive today. Had he done so, he wouldn’t have made such a basic mistake.
I never noticed before, but there’s definitely a Ro-Gō in the back of these.
Official Northrop Grumman manga strip depicting their proposed C-UAS system in JSDF service, mounted in the beds of Toyota HMVs
This strip is actually part three of a four-part manga posted on Northrop Grumman’s website intended to promote various military technologies they have proposed for Japan. The other parts can be found here.
Might be but it’s different overall. Like look at the engine area on the back. And the middle return roller is bigger? one of the earlier prototype and the prototype with German style suspension matchs the roller a bit. The boxy shape for the rear, the exhaust is different also placed more center of the tank, and lastly the engine grills. There is the mysterious tanks that looks like chi ha’s but don’t match this tank.
The rollers I’m talking about
I realized that on looking at it further, which is why I crossed out what I had said about it. It does fit the profile of those unknown tanks, but reverse image searching either of the images doesn’t help in their identification.
You think it’s the Chi-Ha Shinhotos? They are reported to have received some modifications in PLA service, such as the replacement of the original engines with 500hp Kharkov V-2 engines.
It would explain the different engine grill and exhaust placement. And for the roller they might just used a part from a different tank like how t34’s used different wheels when scavenging for parts during the war. Lastly for the box in the rear, maybe it was a homemade/field-made? Because some chi ha Kai’s had a smaller version of it.
The Shinhōtō Chi-Ha doesn’t have a hull crew hatch like the vehicle in the image. Personally I also highly doubt that the T-34 engine was ever installed in a Chi-Ha unless there is strong evidence of this.
I don’t really have any strong idea of what the mystery vehicle in the photo is, but the hull design looks more modern than the Chi-Ha to me. I would suggest that it could be a prototype of the Chi-He. If there is information on where the photo was taken, it would help narrow down what it could be.
