Rather sorry that I was not able to respond to this one earlier, but yeah, the IJA’s 75mm guns proved to be quite effective against the armor fielded by the US, its why if the IJA had been able to field more Type 3 Chi-Nu’s the sherman would have had a true adversary in the field of armor in the Pacific, a far more mobile one at that.
As most know though, said armor was retained on the Japanese mainland and never had the chance to prove itself in proper combat, I have a feeling they would have been a rude awakening if the US did have to invade the mainland.
Once again I am aware, such is not a relevant feature to the sights actual operation. As already stated, the benefit that Russian optics “had” over US ones was the ability to dial in range with their ladders, and, initially a very rudimentary stadiametric rangefinder, germany also had a similar feature but chose to design their ladders in a substantially different way than Russia. The US instead chose to have what has now become modern battlesights and such sights still exist to this day on the likes of the M1 series MBTs.
Bit from the side this topic:
Would someone happen to know which document had the Japanese drawn US tank armor thickness pictures? It wasn’t that long ago since I last saw them. The Sherman picture was similar to that one below, but I think it had the two fixed hull machine guns of the prototype. There was also M6 heavy and a third tank, probably Stuart or Lee.
