They could have just added the APDS that was developed for the gun, but I guess they just didn’t want to.
Neither APDS rounds developed for the SA18 is particularly impressive. At best, we might be able to get ~ 40 mm of penetration flat-on at point-blank. That is slightly better performance than the current APCR, but it’s not enough to suddenly make any tanks armed with the SA18 remotely viable.
2 Likes
My dude, this vehicle was fighting primarily lightly armored vehicles. Aka Stuarts, M3 Half Tracks.
For the Pacific, 47mm was powerful. So was the 37mm. Cause the vehicles they engaged were not armored enough to be capable of really reflecting. As most were M3 Stuarts and M3 Half Tracks.
On the Western Front, it was nothing. If you are basing this on a Western standard, then you failed basic theaters 101.
The Type 94 with a 75mm Howitzer had HEAT. So it was indeed powerful, just not to your standards. But then war doesn’t care about an individual standard. It cares about what is reliable on what front.
3 Likes
i will always say yes to more trucks +1
2 Likes
It was also not suppose to fight armor it was meant to fight partisans in China which did not have tanks or much in the way of artillery. But having the inconvenient habit of not being where they where after destroying valuable industrial infrastructure which a gun truck is good enough at maybe getting there before they all leave.
Otherwise the vehicle will work in game due to heat round and speed but also don’t forget with infantry coming a Howitzer with a HE or shrapnel round will be useful we need to think out that future angle of removing the building.
3 Likes
From what I read of the Soviet opinion of Japanese equipment it was not that great as they knew of what was being in there own development pipeline and the Japanese equipment was not indicative of them making something similar. Japanese where shocked by the BT tanks main gun.
Soviets would take all captured equipment and dump it in storage apparently. When the Soviets steam rolled Japan in 1945 they would capture even more and most of these stocks where given to the Chinese Communists when the war was over. Some would live on to find there way to Vietnam.
2 Likes
I doubt all of it was strictly dumped into storage; I like to assume they still studied and took from it. Since there is most certainly things they could study from what they captured to improve their own.
looked at yes but soviets really did not think much of Japanese equipment especially since some Japanese equipment was based off of French stuff which the USSR already knew about. USSR had more of a engineering respect for German and American Weapons. What USSR really wanted post war from Japan was IJN naval tech which was better then anything the red navy had subtract the 25mm anti-air guns. Don’t talk about the 25mm moral boosters. Japanese marine tech was considered very advanced in many fields they just failed to deploy a great amount of it.
My first TT was France, i remember FCM 36 positively, it was very well armored tank
In meantime this horrible thing sdkfz222 in German TT have no turret, only have half of traverse movement for gun, less than tutels, no roof, or anything really, it has nothing, 2 people without armor and only apcr for use, but it’s at 2.0 somehow.
Japanese stuff was not based on French Equipment. That’s a massive misconception right there.
Japanese machine guns had a lineage connecting back to the Hotchkiss machine gun yes these Japanese made changes but the Hotchkiss machine gun is still a strip feed gun which tried to solve the issues concerning belts.
Russia liked her belt feed machine guns as the thinking was all issues of belts could be solved.
1 Like
Lineage, sure; however, Japan didn’t strictly based it solely on French Equipment.
So? Historical context does not matter, gameplay context does. This might have done just fine in China, but it will do poorly in game. Garford doesn’t do great, either.
Historical context heavily matters; a lot of stuff added to the game is only thanks to historical context.
@Fourche7 asked me to copy and post his findings regarding the gun in question, as he was locked out due to inactivity in the game. Therefore, everything written below is in his own words.
8 Likes
Also, the Garford is from 1915; obviously, it doesn’t sound great.
But here’s the difference: the Type 41 75 mm mountain gun may be from 1908; it’s not the same as its 1908 counterpart. The ammunition types it has clearly were designed and produced so it had a multi-role function.
The Garford, however, was not built to fight other tanks cause there weren’t any. So your example is not a really good example at all. Since that was 18->20 kilometers per hour(11->12 mph). Which is not great.
The Type 94 Truck, however, can go from 45->60 kilometers per hour(27->37 mph), which is a drastically different number for off and on-road performance.
1 Like
So borderline unusable, as I said.
At low tier, that’s perfectly usable. Everything everyone has provided speaks louder than some smuck trying to claim it isn’t.
2 Likes
I don’t know why you people are so offended by the thought that some vehicles just won’t perform well enough to belong in game.
1 Like
Im not “Offended” by people disagreeing or believing it would not perform.
I disagree because there is no counterargument, no substance, no real debate on why someone would believe it would not perform at all in-game.
The only argument was incredibly weak.
2 Likes