Changing to a gun with a calibre almost twice as large is going to require extensive modification. It will need a purpose-built mount, and will require much more space both for the gun itself and its operation. If this is even physically possible, it’s quite unlikely.
1 Like
I don’t remember the old forum discussion about it but yeah I’m not aware of any modified Type 92 other than the special float one.
And forgot to add this to the list of stuff you can add (unless it’s there and over looked it)
Late model Type 92 - new suspension with four road wheels and two return rollers
Not 100% sure what’s the difference between early and mid one
2 Likes
I’m just asking out of curiosity, but where was this captured from? Since production of the Type 92 armored car officially ended in 1936, I don’t think it makes sense to call it something like model 1939 or 1942. It might be referring to a different vehicle, but I’m not sure what. Isn’t there any attached explanation or description?
1 Like
It’s from one of the hypothetical tech trees on the old forum, from before Japan even had a ground tree. It’s also pretty bad when it comes to being accurate.
That part is pretty much just copied from the English Wikipedia page for it, which details the tank having “early,” “mid,” and “late” production variants. I haven’t been able to find any sources collaborating the replacement of the Type 91 machine guns with Type 97, though, or any of the other details given in that section, which is what the 1942 variant supposedly is. The only part that is for-sure accurate is that their were early and late models, differing in their suspension and in minor details like their viewports, and that earlier production versions often lacked the intended 13 mm machine gun and just used a Type 91, instead.
Early-Production Model Suspension
Three pairs of two road wheels and three bogies per side. Strobe light atop turret. No viewports in turret. Type 91 hull machine gun instead of 13 mm machine gun.
Late-Production Model
Suspension simplified to two pairs of two road wheels, larger compared to early-production, and only two bogies instead of three. Strobe light dropped. Turret viewports installed. 13 mm hull machine gun.
2 Likes
I see. I just checked the English Wikipedia, and it seems they mistook the 6.5 mm version for the early-production model and the 13 mm version for the mid-production model.
I can’t say for sure, but I think it’s probably false. Even in the blueprint drawn in February 1939, after production had already ended, the machine gun is still shown as the Type 91.
Just to add, in the late model not only the suspension but also the tracks were replaced.
EDIT: Oh, and you probably already know this, but there’s also a version of the early-production model that had a 13 mm machine gun installed. I mention this because it seems that version isn’t included in the tree you made.
1 Like
Honestly like wiggly said the old ones has tons of fakes or misunderstandings but that’s what I’m trying to uncover the misunderstandings for example the Chi ha Kai applique was ment to be the track armor one or the Stuart armor one. While the Chi ha Kai II was the one with the extra 25mm turret armor. (I might be wrong but either way. The stuff I found was the overlooked/forgotten stuff that was discussed on the old forums)
this:
From my understanding (probably like you guys said the refits was a misunderstanding unless there is actual sources to back it up).The old websites combined say a total of 7 or 8 varieties was made.
The early version that had mg’s then rearmed
The early version that came with the 13.2mm
Late one. I’m trying to figure out if this was a badly drawn art or there was this design of these road wheels
Might be this one I’m trying to find better photos.
Late one with different road wheels.
And lastly a 20mm one and a 37mm one (honestly I don’t see how a 20mm can be fitted maybe one of the shorter barreled 37mm? But it needs to heavily modify the port for it). Also I believe I found the misunderstanding of the 1942 model.
2 Likes
War Drawings and the numerous popular AFV and Tank Encyclopedias, while they can be good for some obscure vehicles, is generally trash for the same reason Wikipedia is. Or because they just straight up quote Wikipedia. The 20 mm and the 37 mm is too large for the tank to carry, at most it was just a proposal in the same way that the Tiger 10,5 cm was. And, in the same way, suggesting that an unmodified Type 92 could’ve carried either of them is just as egregious as an unmodified Tiger II turret carrying a 10,5 cm.
There is definitely only one “late” one there, though. War Drawings just didn’t get the wheels perfectly right. That photograph is also too grainy to draw any solid conclusion from, but with the lack of any other photos I don’t think it would be any different from the normal soft-edged road wheels like in more clear photographs of the vehicle.
3 Likes
Tbh I would say this about almost any non-Japanese material in net. One of the best thing to research Japanese vehicle is reading Japanese wiki which has much lower number of mistakes
2 Likes
Skyguard 3 system
1 Like
Did the JGSDF M8 Greyhounds ever use the anti-aircraft cal. .50? I’ve seen it mentioned, but in every actual photo of a JGSDF Greyhound I’ve always seem them without the cal. .50.
1 Like
I’m trying to find the photo of it I swear I saw it before.
Would the M20 and M39 make a good 1.0 spaa or its bit modern for it?
M20
M39
Did they used a LVT(A)-5?
Also found this
Komatsu SU-I
Mitsubishi SU-II
The M59 (right) next by the Komatsu SV prototype 81mm self-propelled mortar (center) and the Mitsubishi SX prototype 107mm self-propelled mortar (left).
idk if these would work in game
M4 M5 M8
3 Likes
I considered including the M20 AUC, but decided against it for the same reason I didn’t include it in the USA megatree I haven’t completed. It wasn’t intended for either frontline combat or as a anti-aircraft defense, except in the sense that it could defend itself from aircraft. Out of all of the lightly armed vehicles that came out of that era, the only ones I’m in favor of adding are the American scout cars (M1 and M3 series) because they were effectively armored cars. The only real distinction between the American 1930s armored and scout cars is that the former were turreted and the latter were not. Otherwise they intended to fulfill mostly the same duties, just with the armored cars having a larger focus on offensive firepower, in the sense of their armor and not their armament since both armored cars and scout cars were only armed with cal. .50 M2 HBs (37-mm M3 not introduced until 1939); and scout cars, as the name suggest, focusing on reconnaissance.
There were other scout cars that came out after the interwar era, notably the British Ferrets and the Soviet BRDMs, but these fall into the category of being too lightly armed and being too late. I guess this could be a double standard and a bias for American vehicles, but I think my logic is fairly sound in that. Though, that wouldn’t apply to the Ferret Mk. 2/6 and Mk. 5 ATGM carriers or either the up-gunned BRDMs like the Azerbaijani ZKDM or the over dozen of ATGM carriers based off of the BRDM-1 and BRDM-2.
Japan did import an LVT(A)-5 in the 1950s as a study reference, but they never used it in actual service. It was imported around the same time that the M47 Patton, the M36 GMC, and the M37 GMC were all imported as study references for the development of the STA/Type 61 TK (M47 as reference for tank design and M36 as reference for 90-mm gun mount design) and the Type 56 HSP SY (M37 as reference). I don’t know what the LVT(A)-5 was used as reference for, though. It’s already included in the hypothetical tree as the premium.
2 Likes
Yes
I saw photo of Japanese M8 with .50
But can’t send it now
One can be seen in the forum suggestion:
I also found about 3-4 other photos of Japanese M20s, and a couple of the M8 (albeit the M8 did not have the .50 cal in these photos).
4 Likes
Oh. I was dumb and didn’t make out the machine gun the first time I looked at that. :v
3 Likes
Yeah besides the compression of the image it doesn’t help that Japan used the short .50 mount it seems.
I also saw some models of JGSDF M8s that show the same thing, although I’m not sure if they’re based on real photos or not.
2 Likes
Firefly, Sherman 76, T-34-85 and many other contemporary vehicles have the same 0.027 dispersion. Meanwhile Japanese Type 5 75mm Tank Gun still has 0.07, which is also what most 1.0 BR 37mm and 45mm guns have. Obviously those guns didn’t have the same exact dispersion in real life. At any rate the historical value for the Japanese gun is 0.015 - 0.03 & 0.038 depending if HE round dispersion is included.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/1wWioLD2SQst
In reload speed the same gun also lacks bit behind Panzer IV and Sherman 76, despite having turret ammo racks: 6.5s vs 5.9s.
In game reload rate fine tuning is considered as a balance thing, so does someone consider Chi-Nu II or Chi-Tos to be overperforming on their BR?
qaz already made a report about it with historical source. 10 rounds per minute would indeed be closer to 5.9s. This is in specific about the TANK mounted gun.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/AtLWLmyZXWRj
On open top tank destroyers mounts the Japanese gun lacks even further behind. Marder III and M10 GMC were both buffed to 5s reload, while the Na-To with far more space has 5.9s.
3 Likes
Japan imported multiple LVT A5s and did use them for actual service for a short time, but the examples they received were in really poor condition, so they were retired after a very short service time.
8 Likes
Are there ANY MBTs Japan could get at 9.7? From any Asian nation. I feel like 9.7 could be a very good BR if Japan got an MBT there
2 Likes
M60A3 TIFCS from Thailand… yeah that’s all I can think of. The Filipino Sabrah LT maybe, but thats not a MBT.
1 Like