German tanks in Japanese service

All true but that pretty much applies to the Tigers as well, and we think those are neat.

 

You only see the armor topic (which is nice , yes, I agree)...but read over the the few added comments that unhealthily overrates the japanese tanks, and imperial army capabilities over their actual condition/facts.
That is not historical fact providing, that is bragging.
And bragging about your (?) country is fine, if it is clear you want a bragging competition, but don't pretend you are a "official historian" and make false claims based on nationalistic gut feelings...

The (not so clear to me..*) holes at the side front of the sherman, if they are 47 mm grenade holes, would appear more from AT guns hidden in the bushes at beach side (which makes SENSE ) than a jap tank (high on ground = visible = targeted by USN).
There is simply no proof where it came from and what the holes (if they are the killing holes) are from(what type of ATgun.
But here is an idea: maybe the Chi-ha ? was DUG IN so that ONLY the turret was ABOVE ground.
HEEEY ?!?! Then we all are right : The sherman was hit by a japanese tank, and the jap tank "won".....only, to me, and many tank"specialists" that doesNOT count as a tank vs tank "fight".

* IF this spots are indeed penetration holes of AT guns. I don't see scorch marks or open & burned (soot) hatches. That means that at worst the radiooperator is killed ...and with so many marines deployed, the tank commander has "the luxury" to stay there and have the radiooperator removed.., after which this photo is taken, .that doesn't mean that the sherman is KNOCKED OUT !
There have been many examples of tankcrew that continued fighting..if need be.

You say no mine ? I see A LOT OF SAND around the tracks..how does that Sherman SINK in all that sand ? This side has no blasted tracks, but maybe the other side had it. And for sure the 47 mm AT gun don't create that pile of sand, does it ?
Maybe, just maybe (no proof, yet I don't claim IT IS the fact) the sherman got stuck in the pile of sand FIRST (mine? uneven balance ?spontaneous broken track, clutch?) AFTER which the 47mm(?) ATgun aimed at this EASY target....


There is another Ae mail in which japanese aggression on Shjang Hai was "where the japanese forces defended themselves against chinese attacks".
Riiiiiiight.
In this topic...the japanese tanks were outclassing the german tanks...hands down......rrrrrriight.

 

I am not so sure "her" is a her.


ah..47mm AntiTank gun..That is more sensible..like I say above.
But certainly NOt a operational Chiha tank.

 

?? Who made this claim??

 

Dud_really,

 

Dude, try using some punctuation and proper paragraph structure please. My brain hurts trying to read what you just wrote.

 

Ae Sun, back in the OP

That was one the things the irked Dude so much.

 

I have queried this earlier in the thread. Would very much like to see details of this return 'sale', as it's not something I recall any reference to.
I've combed the sites that Ae Sun has built these Japanese tank posts from, and so far not seen that reference substantiated. It may be my memory failing (quite likely) but I can't recall reading anything in my library on Japan getting a fiscal return on the extortionate price they paid for some undelivered armour.

 

All of my information on these Germans tanks originates from the book 日本の戦車　原乙未生 (Unless you mean War Thunder, where I post this information via my account Mai_Waffentrager). None of which state the details you are asking for. If you want information on whether they got their money back, then yes they did. The official transaction never took place. However the Army bought the license for the tanks offered.

 

Not grenade, but AP.

I would direct you to "Annex Jig to Fourth Marine Division Operations Report Iwo Jima 4th Tank Battalion Report"

or else "Tank Warfare On Iwo Jima" byDavid E. Harper.

They are 47 mike mike...Also, if you read Annex Jig, you will see that the 47mm was quite effective at knocking out Shermans.

They are penetrating holes, so please cease and desist this useless dead-end road.

As there are at least 10 of them, all though not all were penetrating. As to the damage, your just guessing, and have no real idea as to the extent of the damage. Seeing as the AP round will go in and then bounce around until it's energy is spent, several of the crew could have been wounded or killed. Not to mention damage to any number of systems in the vehicle.

When rounds are coming through one side of the tank...the commander's side nonetheless, I don't think that he has that "luxury."

And...Yeah, it does mean the tank was knocked out, it doesn't mean that the tank was destroyed.

Tank crews continued fighting...doubtful that they were effective having only pistols and a .45 SMG. Maybe if they were lucky, and had the time, they could remove the .30 cal. But with penetrating rounds coming in, I don't think they will take that time.

Yeah, I say no mine. The track is intact, and there is no suspension damage. Not to mention, no crater. And, it's not sand, it's ash, Iwo is a volcanic island.

Dude...It's called research.

"Agony" from the left side

From the newsreel found here: http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675036303_battle-of-Iwo-Jima_United-States-Marines-advance-further_wrecked-marine-tanks_World-War-II

Your claim is false, and I have provided you with plenty of proof that it is false. You can claim, if it makes you feel any better, all you want, that it got "stuck"(no mine - no crater, no broken track - tracks are intact), but that is not going to change the truth or the fact that "Agony" was KO'd by a Japanese 47mm AT gun.

 

Not to mention spalling, blast, possible secondary explosions, etc.

It is my understanding that on this board like most other historical boards posters are requested to refrain from using the three letter abreviations of the national names. Some find it disrespectful and there is no need to be inadvertently offensive.

 

"Jap" is offensive. "Jpn" is favored upon.

 

Ah. Four pages ago?

He didn't seem irked as much as bent all out of shape. I felt irked about the natural rain on, swampy, muddy Pacific Islands. But I know I know very little about Japanese tanks in the Pacific or Chinese theatres of war, so ... bring on the knowledge!

I guess I'm lucky my irk got drowned in bent...

 

I have seen posts by Japanese and Americans of Japanese ancestory. Some of them have no objection to either "jap" or "nip" while others do. I haven't seen "Jpn" used much or indeed at all. "Jap" is also overloaded as it is an acronym for a couple of other groups. Some would likely find the lack of capitalization of the proper names offensive as well and so I try to avoid it but I haven't seen any policies on that one way or another. Safer just to spell it out. I have on a fair number of occasions insulted people but I really hate doing it unintentionally.

 

I remain intrigued, I'm afraid.
In front of me I have a facsimile of the original bill to Japan in Spielberger's Tiger book.

Henschel received the amount in full (more than twice the internal price of a Tiger) on 28/02/44.

I've always found the sale very intriguing, but the substantiated info on it that I've seen is slender. The above bill not really confirming all that much except the agreed base price, which included ammunition & ancillaries (92rds of 88mm, 4500rds of MG & 192rds of MP were specified in the order, along with radios, and a breakdown of component prices, but it still came to RM300K over the odds) .
I don't think I've heard anyone claim so strongly that a refund was given, and would be more than interested if this 日本の戦車　原乙未生 book has a footnote or reference to the claim that said refund was actually issued or received, as Spielberger tells us a memo from the German Armaments dept. & CO of the Reserves on 21/09/44 announced the machine was no longer to be delivered to Japan, but would be "put at the disposal of the German Army by way of a loan" (my italics).
September '44 is getting rather late in the war for such loans to be honoured.

 

I did too, but it was such a trivial matter, that I thought it was not worth debating about.

By, 1943(when development began on the Type 5 I do not know, but AFAIK, the Type 3 Chi-Nu began in mid '43), Japan was in the process of losing her island holdings, and by the time full scale production could begin, would likely have lost all or most of those holdings. So, I don't buy into the fact that the Japanese were building their tanks specifically to fight in the rainy, muddy terrain of the Pacific Islands.

 

Dude got bent out of shape over many things, but he neglected to mention this one,

Which, to me, is the most debatable of Ae Sun's OP.

 

I used the information stated, it was a fairly brief explanation. I'm afraid this is stepping out of my area of preference, this subject may have more details in German sources, little is stated in the Japanese cites.

Maybe I had not clarified more suitably. Outdated equipment such as the Panther and early Tiger models, nothing further. The Japanese had entered the development of higher statistical vehicles in the medium category. I will go more detail in this at a later time.