Also where Ki-64
2 Likes
Well thats about as reason for uptiering something as 37 mm secondary is reason for chi-ri to be 5.7
But yeah its stupid enough gaijin might do that
2 Likes
Guys, something might be cooked soon. We’ll update you with details.
(just teaser but it’ll get revealed one day soon)
7 Likes
literal definition of a striptease, but for a tank. Good stuff
3 Likes
Saying Lmao cus it is
1 Like
As I recently had the opportunity to examine the original Ho-Ri gun research notes from 1943–1945, I believe I can now explain more clearly the points I previously mentioned somewhat vaguely.
First, regarding my earlier statement that two guns were produced in December, it would be more accurate to say “by December” rather than “in December.” According to a record dated October 13, 1944, one gun had already been completed by that point. It appears that the initial plan was to conduct the completion tests with this single gun, but during the December testing two guns were used.
Regarding the mantlet modification, the explanation that it was carried out on both guns and completed in February is correct. More specifically, the work was finished on February 4. As for the corrective function tests, although I previously said that they were conducted in March, they in fact took place between February and March. They were carried out from February 27 to March 7 at the Osaka Arsenal and the Ōtsugawa Range.
Lastly, I previously wrote that the two guns had been fully completed on May 27. This statement was based on the works of well-known Japanese researchers such as Sayama and Kunimoto. Of course, this is not to say that they were wrong, but the situation appears to have been somewhat different from what was expected.
The original researchers did not actually report that the guns had been fully completed on May 27. Rather, on May 11 they merely “requested” that the necessary modifications be applied by May 27, as they wanted to complete the guns by that date. Although these modifications were indeed carried out, they planned to conduct additional tests on June 22 to examine the functionality after the changes.
In other words, it seems most reasonable to look to the June test results to determine whether the guns were truly considered complete or whether further improvements were identified. The problem is that the summary report stops abruptly, leaving us with no way of knowing the outcome.
This is not an exaggeration. Near the beginning of the report, a sentence suddenly breaks off. It seems that something may have happened in late June while the report was being written, preventing its completion. Or perhaps for some reason, there was simply no longer any need to continue drafting the report.
Although I did not mention this previously, I thought it might be of interest to many of you, so I am sharing it here. It is a loading speed measurement chart for the Ho-Ri gun, conducted using Gun No. 1 at the Osaka Arsenal on February 27, 1945.
| Elev. | Loading Time | Recoil Length | Recoil Cycle Time | Loading Time (with cartridge case) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0° | 1.0 | 530 | 1.1 | 1.3 |
| 0.9 | 530 | 1.1 | 1.5 (with projectile) | |
| 1.0 | 530 | 1.5 | ||
| 20° | 1.0 | 530 | 1.5 | |
| 1.0 |
While the document does not explicitly define how loading speed was measured in this test, it appears to refer to the time from when the loading tray began to tilt forward until the rammer pushed the shell fully into the chamber. Overall, when loading an actual round, the theoretical maximum loading speed of the Ho-Ri was approximately 2.6 to 3.0 seconds.
Of course, in practice it would have been difficult to tilt the tray immediately after the recoil cycle ended, and more importantly, the process of retrieving a round from the ammo rack and placing it onto the tray was entirely manual. The practical reload time would have been much longer.
Still, it is an impressive rate.
2 Likes
Oh my God, thank you! Do you possibly have original sources on hand where all this info comes from, so we do not experience issue with sourcing? I will edit the information shortly and notify one currently responsible for cooking something else
As for reload speed - it is surprisingly similar to that of Enlisted’s Chi-Ri – it’s like 2.5 seconds there iirc, but it’s a somewhat better automated loading mechanism - the tray goes back and forth on itself due to recoil, iirc. Making 3.5 second reload for Ho-Ri there, in Enlisted, and here, in War Thunder, would be a very awesome upgrade
1 Like
It is nice data!
Could I ask you is the data about reload time available? Probably can be used for bug reports like this: Community Bug Reporting System
Yes. I have photographs that I personally took at the NIDS archives. However, the issue is that I did not obtain permission for secondary use of these materials. I will need to contact NIDS again regarding this matter, but the problem is that NIDS does not accept inquiries by email. I would have to send a letter by post…
Still, a bug report might be acceptable. However, I’m not sure how materials submitted in a bug report are handled, and I haven’t asked NIDS about this either, so I can’t say for certain. It might take some time. So, if I were to submit a bug report, what would be a reasonable expected reload time? The recently adjusted Chi-Ri is at 4.5 seconds… so would something around 6 seconds be appropriate? It would be helpful if there were a suitable vehicle for comparison.
The table I just shared is essentially the only available source regarding the Ho-Ri’s reload time. There is also data measured in December 1944, but it only records the time required for the rammer to move forward, so I do not think it is very meaningful.
I just realized that what I mentioned earlier was referring to the reload time, not the loading time. I used the wrong term while writing a long post. I believe the reload time can be estimated as recoil cycle + loading time + α.
1 Like
they could be privately sent to Gaijin volunteers and then by them to Gaijin. But if for Gaijin there is no issue with keeping them private, volunteers… are doubtful sometimes.
Perhaps, you have identifiers of these archive folders on hand? (e.g. French Chatellerault archives have identifiers like “AA, 300H1…”)
some vehicles have reload balanced by documents, others by “pulled out of my A” for balance purposes. Swedish 120mm SPG can fire every second, American T58 can fire every 2-3 seconds iirc, then French tanks with mechanized loading are limited to 6.7 seconds, some are even worse at 12-20 seconds. (but the higher the BR, the more accurate reload is)
The archival identifier code is “中央-軍事行政兵器-619”, the document title is “ホリ砲竣工試験計画 他 昭和１９年１０月” , and the author is listed as “試験員科長陸軍大佐沼口匡隆他”. The loading time chart is on page 83 of this document.
Do you think this level of information would be sufficient to file a bug report? To be honest, consulting with NIDS about this would likely be extremely inefficient and troublesome…
On this point, I would like to emphasize that the Ho-Ri’s reload time is not entirely clear from the test records alone. The loading tray did not move automatically. Although it was mechanically linked to the breech, this served only as a safety interlock and did not drive the tray itself. The loader first had to visually confirm that the breech had returned forward and the spent case had been ejected, then manually tilt the tray. After that, the process became automatic. And I previously suggested that the 1.5 seconds listed in the table might include the time required to move the tray, but this is uncertain. On reflection, it may simply represent the rammer’s motion alone.
In any case, this means that a great deal of “estimation” must go into determining the Ho-Ri’s practical reload time. The time needed to take a round from the ammunition rack, place it on the tray, and then move the tray itself would largely be up to Gaijin’s discretion. As a result, even if a bug report is submitted, it may not lead to any major changes—though it would likely still make the reload slightly faster.
It would have been ideal if the researchers had measured the practical reload time, but that was not their responsibility. As far as I know, such operational values were not determined during the research phase, but only later, when the gun was standardized and manuals were prepared by organizations such as the Armored Bureau. This does not apply to the Ho-Ri, as it was still at the prototype stage.
2 Likes