Why do ww2 Japanese tanks carrying 75mm guns have so large reload times ? Why does the Chi Nu have such a long reload when theres ammo literally behind the loader ready to be inserted into the gun ? Same goes for the CHI TO and CHI TO Late.Why 8.4 second reload when the panzer 4 with an ace crew does that almost in half the time ? Unless theres some historical reason it doesnt make sense.Also how on earth can the NA TO have a 7.6 second reload WHEN IT HAS 2 LOADERS !!!
Finaly i dont understand why these tanks are on the Brs that they are.Why is the CHI HE at 2.7 when the Sherman 105 which is x10 times better is just at 3.0 ? That thing belongs to 2.0-2.3 (talking about CHI HE).CHI NU belongs to 2.7-3.0 not 3.3 and CHI TOs belong to 3.7 and 4.0 NOT 4.7 FOR GODS SAKE ! Finaly the CHI RI belongs to 4.3 not 5.0.Who on his right mind thinks that the CHI RI is similar to the Panther or T34-85 ?
Ive been playing the Japanese tech tree and i really cant wrap my mind around these things.They make no sense and i ask that they be fixed/changed.
Is Pz 4g have vry similar characteristics to Chi-to?
Also the Ka-Mi, which even with it’s dinky little 37mm has the same reload as the British 6 pounder for whatever reason.
Theyre close in many aspects yes
Uptier pz4g to 4.3-4.7 and no problem
The Panzer IV has worse range. While there very close in aspects the cannon is not.
The Japanese 75mm was a modified Anti-air gun design meaning it had a higher velocity you could say it was more comparable to the 75mm used by the Panthers. While the Panzer IV’s gun is comparable to a Chi-Nu’s 75mm.
I dont agree at all with this
Biggest issue with Japanese low BR tanks is that their APHE performance is absolute garbage. On paper it looks nice with relatively high pen and decent explo filler. But they’re probably made from rubber or something, because their chance of bouncing from slightest angle is just absurd. Meanwhile Russian 76/85mm 100% pens from any angle.
They are sharp-headed, no ballistic or AP cap.
I’m well aware of this.
Their performance in the game is still absurdly bad. Be it hardcoded penetration characteristics or janky game physics, but you can’t really play Japanese tanks with the mentality that shooting a target on its flat armour is a guaranteed penetration. It’s just entirely down to RNG, and this is where the long reload really bites the player. When you just cant count on a clean hit penetrating. This is only exaggerated with broken tanks like T-34 where the turret face armour can be just about anything between 40 to 150mm.
Volumetric armour and shells pretty much nerfed Japanese APHE to oblivion.
Japanese tanks blow ass, the sky is blue, what’s new? The mid tier Japanese tanks are some of the most painful vehicles in the game to play.
I don’t expect you to. However documental proof already showed that.
Type-90 75mm the same gun on the Chi-Nu
Here’s a similar one for the 7.5cm kanone.
Mind you this is a comparison between the Type-90 and the 7.5cm cannon trying to get documentation for the Type-4 one that the Chi-To uses is rather difficult for me to find however i did find a old post from the old war thunder forum talking about the Japanese Type-4 75mm if you like to read, Penetration of the 75mm Type 5 gun + Some Stuff about the Chi-To and Chi-Ri - Medium Vehicles - War Thunder - Official Forum
This should give you a better idea of its effectiveness. Although take it with a grain of salt since MWT isn’t entirely a trustable source nor do I know how accurate the information since consider that Japanese record of keeping stuff intact isn’t exactly always common from said period.
A lot of reload times don’t make sense.
But there are several factors that make sense for the Japanese tanks to have longer reload times.
For example the breech on the 75mm Type 90 and Type 3 needs to be manually opened.
(I don’t see any ventilation system on Japanese tanks. Did they just open up all the hatches?)
The Japanese tanks are generally cramped, making reloading more tediuous and they don’t have turret baskets.
Chi-to has ammo rack in back of the turret, but reload is longer than on sherman(and another tanks) where loader must take shell from hull.
Well, can’t really draw any conclusions from just that.
Many factors influence RoF like position of ammo, position of the loader relative to the gun, loading procedure.
For the Chi-Nu and Chi-To you could say that the loader can’t move when the gun is loaded or he will get hit in the balls by the recoil.
Hence why on nearly any tank, the common sense is to put the loader besides the gun where he as room to move around.
On the Chi-Nu the commander also has to open the breech anytime the gun is fired, reducing crew efficency and lowering RoF.
In case no one has figured it out: Japanese tanks are kind of crappy.
Their only good feature was having a large field of view optic for their machine guns.
It sais 10-12 rpm which again is lower from what we have in game.With 12 rpm its 5 seconds reload while with 10 its 6 seconds.And of course with 11 rpm its 5.45.All of these are far lower than 8.4 seconds.I understand that this is a field gun that is not inside a tank.But why do we suddenly get 4 seconds with the CHI RI 2 when the CHI TO and CHI TO LATE basically have the same gun ? Is it that much more spacious that the reload gets literally halved ?
Its nice though that you found documents and thank you for taking the time to do so
Edit;Wait a minute is that an autoloader of some sorts on the CHI RI 2 ?
Yes Chi Ri II has autoloader, thats why it has much quicker reload
The Chi-Ri II is an autoloader system. 2 stage autoloader if I recall.
1 shell per rack on the left and right one in the chamber.
Chi Ri IIs autoloader works for only 2 shells though,then the reload is most probably close to 8 seconds
No it works for 3 in total.
1 in the breech 2 in the ready racks. Hense its a 2 Stage autoloader.
Stage 1->Rack 1, Stage 2->Rack 2. Reload all 3 once done. However once the breech and racks are empty its the same amount of time to reload your Chi-To proto, Production, Chi-Nu II and Na-To.