Japan Low Tier Ground Complaints!

I’d like to go back to the basics and do a post about a few strange/annoying things I found while playing rank 1-3 Japan ground, and maybe get some discussion going?

Beginning with light tanks’ 37mm reload rates
The 37mm cannons on the Ha-Go and Ke-Ni somehow has the same reload time as the 57mm of the I-Go Ko’s Type 90 and Chi-Ha’s Type 97 (4.3 seconds). Comparing the 37mms to the American 37mm reload which is at 3.7 seconds (save for the M8) despite being a longer and heavier shell (37x165mm for Type 94 ~.7kg vs 37x223mm .87kg). Also the Ka-Mi’s reload is 5.2 seconds…???

Mediums’ 75mm reload rates
Despite having ammo baskets right behind the loader, spacious turrets and lighter shells, Japanese 75mm guns take longer to reload.

  • Type 3 75mm takes 7.6 seconds vs. the comparable American M3s at 6.5 seconds, often with ammo only in the floor of the tank like in the Jumbo. (6.56kg vs the 6.79kg)
  • Type II, comparable to the American 76 takes 8.4 seconds while its American counterpart takes 7.6. (6.56kg vs 7kg), again with ammo baskets in the turret vs floor ammo in the Shermans.

Na-To reload + BR 3.3
This is just sad

  • 2 dedicated loaders in the back of a completely open top troop carrier, but a 7.6 second reload (again the M4’s M3 75mm reloads in 6.5).
  • Mere 12mm of hull armor with 30 on the mantlet, completely exposed crew in the back, no MG for basic air defense
  • 3.3, same BR as the actually armored and closed top Pz IV F2 and G with very similar penetration values for the gun. The Na-To’s 75 has much more HE, but again, a completely exposed open top TD with limited “turret” traverse.

Chi-Nu at 3.3
75 reload time issues (7.8 seconds), but also once again somehow the same BR as the Pz IV F2/G despite having significantly less armor penetration (~34mm at 10m). This is enough that M4* and T-34 front plates are impenetrable for the Chi-Nu but cracked easily by the F2 and G.
(*M4A2 and up)

Chi-Nu II at 4.3 and Chi-To at 4.7
Worse 75mm reload time issues (8.4 seconds), at 4.3 and 4.7, full 1.0 br gap above previously mentioned Pz. IV F2 and G. Much larger target in general, poor armor continues.

Chi-Ri II at 5.0
Massive target with pitiful armor (can be penned frontally by a M2A4), painfully slow refilling of 3 shot autoloading tray despite ammo basket like, right there.

Side/rear turret mounted MGs
Modeled in X-ray but not operational, but seems to be a common problem across all nations, similar to most hull mounted MGs around this BR. Only examples I found of a working rear turret mounted MG was in the Soviet SMK and IS-7. Not super critical since there is no playable infantry in War Thunder but still unfortunate.

p.s on the PzIV F2/G comparisions
indicative of the much larger problem of basing battle ratings on player performance, still something I found very dumb when put side by side

Lastly and most importantly
I-Go Ko 6.5 Type 91/Type 11 LMG has same X-ray polygon model as 7.7 Type 97. (Literally unplayable).

Anyways thanks for reading! : )

1 Like