Japanese OOB05 v.2014

[Kiwikkiwik]

Page 44 and 50 of the book Japanese tank and antitank warfare says both the 57 and 47mm type 97 (1937) tanks have smoke candles.

[Pibwl]

Just a few notes, after last updates. One of medium importance (333 M-H II), several minor, but easy to fix. Or might be ignored.


69 Aichi D3A - according to a Polish encyclopedia of Japanese aircraft by K. Zalewski, apart from 250kg bomb, it could take 2x60kg bombs (weapon 236) (now 30 kg)

117 Aichi D1A - same as above, but apart from 250kg bomb, it could also take 2x30kg bombs (weapon 153).

108 Type Ka - Bought in 1928 (now 1/33) according to A. Tomczyk "Japanese armor vol.1" or 1930 according to Taki http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/carden.html
Would need extending of formations.

148 M3 Stuart - isn't a better pic 9113..?

200 Ko-Gata - it would be worth to give it an own photo - this generic one doesn't look like Japanese at all. Here is the best choice: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtop...?f=65&t=162780

Apparently also MG-armed were used, which can be added.. (possibly in two classes in mixed 3:2 platoons, along with two kinds of Otsu gata tanks)
One or two photos there show, that also long gun versions were used (weapon 9 37mm Sogekiho)

215 Type 97 Shi-Ki - it also had rear turret MG, which might be added, since it was its only turret weapon (245 7.7 Type 97 TMG?).


271 Yokosuka B4Y1 - it has two 500 kg bombs, but max load was 500 kg. Might be two 250 kg, but on the other hand, the photos always show them with a bunch of small bombs (6 x 50 or 60 kg?). eg. https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6059/6...c22b5682_b.jpg

276 Mitsubishi B2M2 - 800kg was a max load of bombs, but 1 x 800 kg bomb is very doubtful, maybe against ships only..
Here it is shown with some small bomb http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL158.../412102182.jpg

294 Kawanishi H8K2 - maybe a better pic is 9143?

299 Crossley A/C - armament was two separate Vickers 7.7mm.
Maybe a better pic is 8691 or 8692?


333 M-H II - it was Mk III in fact - photo of Japanese cars: http://www.network54.com/Forum/330333/thread/1133122529 (it also seems from the photo, that they have Boys ATR). Apparently they were used until 1945 (caption of the photo at http://www.overvalwagen.com/armoured3.html )

378 Ki-61 Kai Hien - precisely this variant with 4x20mm was Ki-61-II Kai
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_Ki-61

That's all

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

..........Or might be ignored.

there will be some of that......

Originally Posted by Pibwl

271 Yokosuka B4Y1 - it has two 500 kg bombs, but max load was 500 kg. Might be two 250 kg, but on the other hand, the photos always show them with a bunch of small bombs (6 x 50 or 60 kg?). eg. https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6059/6...c22b5682_b.jpg

That unit had 2 new Icons added and the stats revised not long after the last release
x300%

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by DRG

That unit had 2 new Icons added and the stats revised not long after the last release
x300%

Cool

(and a Happy New year )

[Pibwl]

One new thing that I've found:

009 Tp97 Chi-Ha Kai - according to Concord 7004 - "Tank battles of the Pacific war 1941-1945", first two were used in a Corregidor landing (5/42) (now 7/42). However, they were used in significant numbers from Saipan campaign in mid-44.

143 M3 Stuart - as above, officially serving from 4/42 only and used in a Corregidor landing (now 1/42). Unless we assume without evidence, that some might have been used just after capturing.

It would need a change in formation 110. Or a new formation might be created, since the Corregidor unit consisted of only two Type 97 Kai led by one M3. Otherwise, M3 included into the 3rd Company of the 7th Rgt were presumably organized in the same pattern as typical Japanese tanks (three-tank platoons, like formations 02 and 08?).

One more small thing: maybe 453 Type 1 Chi-He (class 59, for Home Defence units) should be available until 12/46 instead of 12/44? After this date it's available only as unit 10 (class 105) in less numerous Japan Def Tanks platoon.

I won't repeat former suggestions, apart from IMHO most important one:

333 M-H II - it should be Mk III. Photo of Japanese cars is at http://www.network54.com/Forum/330333/thread/1133122529 (now it has a poor picture of desert Mk II). It also seems from the photo, that they have Boys ATR. Apparently they were used until 1945 (caption of the photo at http://www.overvalwagen.com/armoured3.html )

Michal

[Pibwl]

22 Type 92 SNLF - according to http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/93car.htm and https://ikazuchisen.wordpress.com/na...3-armored-car/ the right designation of "Type 92 SNLF" is Type 93.

23 Chiyoda A/C - I suggest a name Type 92 Chiyoda (https://ikazuchisen.wordpress.com/chiyoda-armored-car/), to be coherent with other cars. This page gives 6.5mm not 7.7 mm MGs as an armament

[MarkSheppard]

Since I'd rather use an existing thread than create another one...

Just changes to existing fluff text:

Et005012.txt
The Type 3 Medium Tank Chi-Nu was a medium tank of the Imperial Japanese Army . Like the Type 1 Chi-He, this tank was an improved version of the Type 97 Chi-Ha. It incorporated a Type 3 75 mm tank gun, one of the largest Japanese tank guns used during the war.*
*
The Chi-Nu did not see combat. All of the 144 to 166 built were retained for the defense of the Japanese Homeland in anticipation of an Allied invasion which never occured.*

Et005013.txt
The Type 4 Chi-To medium tank resulted from the same Summer 1943 specification as the Type 5 Chi-Ri, originally being designed as a "low end" vehicle with a 57mm L48.5 gun (one prototype was completed with this armament) and massing about 25t to complement the 35t Type 5 in armored units.*
*
In April 1944, it was decided to redesign it to carry the more powerful 75mm L56 gun earmarked for the Type 5, and combat weight rose to 29.5t. Despite being the most advanced Japanese wartime tank to reach production, shortages resulted in only six chassis being manufactured and only two were completed with neither seeing combat before the war ended.*
*
If the war had continued, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kobe Steel had been scheduled to produce 25 to 35 Chi-To a month from September 1945 to February 1946, for a total of 200~ tanks produced by March 1946.*

Et005014.txt
The Type 5 medium tank Chi-Ri resulted from a Summer 1943 specification by the Japanese Army. The focus of the new medium tank was shifted from infantry-cooperation to an anti-tank weapon, with the following specifications: 75mm L56 gun, 75mm maximum frontal armor, 40 km/hr top speed and 35t combat weight. The enormous turret was to accommodate a semi-automatic loader for the gun. On 25 April 1943, Osaka Army Arsenal received the contract to produce 5 prototypes, (4 in September 1944 and 1 in October 1944), with mass production planned to begin in 1945.*
*
However, in April 1944 it was decided to upgun the the Type 4 Chi-To to carry the same 75mm Gun as the Type 5; and development of the Type 5 was halted to concentrate on the Type 4 since it's 29.5t weight could be lifted by the 30t derricks on Japanese Wartime Standard Freighters, as opposed to the Type 5's 35t weight. The lone Type 5 Chi-Ri prototype was found incomplete at war's end.*

[MarkSheppard]

Also, request name change of Formation 017 "Japan Def Tanks" to "Japan Def Tk Pl" and addition of a new formation titled Japan Def Tk Co

[DRG]

If you are going to suggest a text change like this make sure what you suggest actually fits the format used in the game before doing so !

There are length restrictions for units so try again making it fit this time

Originally Posted by MarkSheppard

Since I'd rather use an existing thread than create another one...

Just changes to existing fluff text:

[MarkSheppard]

Originally Posted by DRG

If you are going to suggest a text change like this make sure what you suggest actually fits the format used in the game before doing so !

There are length restrictions for units so try again making it fit this time

Don, I did check it before I posted; I got this in the in-game encyclopedia and unit data:



Is it SOP to leave one line's worth of text as "insurance" against text overflows, etc?