Some thought about "Japanese Heavy Tanks"

[monochromelody]

You may read some info from Maiwaffentrager's blog or somewhere else, which I seriously doubt any credibility.
I would assume that these names show some certain design features, rather than factory names, I'll explain now.

What Maiwftrgr. said Ai-96, Mitsu-97, Mitsu-104, Ishi-108, have names to imply factory, which I don't believe.

I think these are misinformation about tank configuration.

一砲塔(one-turreted)→イチ(ichi, means one)→Aichi or A "ichi"(far-fetched)

三砲塔(three-turreted)→ミツ(mitsu, means three)→Mitsubishi(far-fetched)

五砲塔(five-turreted)→イツ(itsu, means five)→イシ(ishi, mis-written)→Ishikawajima(Far-fetched)

And so far, my explaination did work well on heavy tanks:
Ai-96(one-turreted)

Mitsu-97(three-turreted)

Mitsu-104(three-turreted)

Ishi-108(five-turreted)

Actually these tanks could be IJA document about foreign tank developments circa early 1930s. When Allies intelligence found them, they were granted "Japanese secret weapons".

Yet I can't figure out how these numbers after names meaning, but I can say that these numbers definitely not for year designed/adopted.

My opinion about Maiwaffentrager?
DO NOT TRUST ANYTHING HE/SHE SAID
Because he/she had been caught making up "archive photos" by censoring unrelated document data pages, several times.

Once I caught Maiwaffentrager 3 or 4 years ago, he/she was posting a snapshot claimed to be "Mitsubishi secret file about Type 90 MBT protection estimation".
While I found out that actually he/she took a page from declassified Type 10 MBT design report, put heavy censoreship on Japanese Kanji text, left only numbers to be seen, and inverted the image black&white colour.
In fact that page is discussion about different tank optic lense sizes and their pros & cons. He/she left those size numbers, claiming it's armour thickness equivalent against KE-munition.
When I busted it out, he/she apologized immediatly, and deleted everything could be evidence against himself/herself.

Another time last year, Maiwaffentrager was caught again, posting a snapshot of "Japanese patent of un-manned turret tank design", turned out to be a Bofors AB patent, with all those annotation erased.

Anyways, never trust. And bust it up if you can.

 

[Dilandu]

I wonder, could Mitsu-97 actually be presumed representations of Soviet T-28 medium tank early models? Mitsu-97 looks just like Japanese grasped the shape and general design of early T-28, but messed up with main armament, assuming that the big hole on the right is for another cannon:

 

[monochromelody]

I wonder, could Mitsu-97 actually be presumed representations of Soviet T-28 medium tank early models? Mitsu-97 looks just like Japanese grasped the shape and general design of early T-28, but messed up with main armament, assuming that the big hole on the right is for another cannon:

View attachment 663764

quite possible, it could be T-28 model 1932:

 

[cattalonX]

Ishi-108 must be A1E1

But how about this thing？ it don't like O-I，The main turret looks cylindrical

 

[monochromelody]

Ishi-108 must be A1E1

But how about this thing？ it don't like O-I，The main turret looks cylindrical


View attachment 663779

The Japanese title said, "100-ton tank mock-up(百噸戦車模型, written from right to left)".
In fact there was a military science expo (国防科学大博覧会) held in Nishinomiya city Hyogo prefecture(兵庫県 西宮市), supported by Japanese government and military. Exbition from 1 April to 31 May, 1941.

From the book of this expo published in November 1941, it says this 100-ton is just a mock-up (probably wooden) of the real size super heavy tank.

Here shows some armament info: one 15cm gun, one 7cm gun and some MGs, manned by a dozen of soldiers or more.
The book even says, "these super heavies were massively used in the fierce battles of Deutsch-Soviet front".
If you get KV-1 and KV-2 together and weld them into one, like what T-100 do, it will get quite close to the description.
As for the mock-up itself, it may be a over-sized T-28 medium tank.

 

[Abingdon]

There are still some mysteries about Japanese medium/heavy tank development. Here's a photo from 16 Oct 1945 when US troops were destroying Japanese tanks and AFVs in Fuchinobe. The vehicle on the left with what appears to be a Soviet T-28 turret is the experimental Chi-ho medium tank. To the left is an unidentified type.

 

[Dilandu]

There are still some mysteries about Japanese medium/heavy tank development. Here's a photo from 16 Oct 1945 when US troops were destroying Japanese tanks and AFVs in Fuchinobe. The vehicle on the left with what appears to be a Soviet T-28 turret is the experimental Chi-ho medium tank. To the left is an unidentified type.

Frankly, it looks like a plastic model of tank doctored into background. Look, the detalization of "T-28 turret is the experimental Chi-ho" is next thing to nonexistent, and the curves are too smooth.

 

[Abingdon]

It looks odd because it is a small part of a much larger photo.

 

[muttly]

Didn't the germans send the Japanese a tiger tank to research or was it just the plans.

 

[Dilandu]

It looks odd because it is a small part of a much larger photo.

It still looks very odd, and suspiciously non-detailed in comparison with the machines nearby.

 

[Dilandu]

Didn't the germans send the Japanese a tiger tank to research or was it just the plans.

Japanese brought one Tiger-I tank along with blueprints in 1943, but nobody could figure out how exactly to deliver it, so they just leased (or sold) it back to Germany in 1944.

Before that, in 1941, Japan expressed interest in Somua S35 tank, and tried to order a batch from Vichy, but Germans were suspicious about potential weapon production in France, so nothing came out of it.

 

[Abingdon]

It looks odd because it is a small part of a much larger photo.

It still looks very odd, and suspiciously non-detailed in comparison with the machines nearby.

If you don't believe me, go to NARA II in College Park. MD and look up the original. It's in RG-111SC, SC 214787. I got a print off the original neg back in the late 1970s when the Signal Corps collection was still at the Pentagon. It's since moved to DAVA then NARA II. Also, take a look for Chi-Ho on the internet. AFAIK, this is the only known photo of Chi-Ho. There are some scale plans in the old Tomio Hara book on Japanese tanks.

 

[eltf177]

The Japanese also bought a Panther but again, no way to ship it. IIRC plans were sent back to Japan but I don't know if they made it there or not (a lot of their transport subs never made it home). I know that the sub carrying an Me-163 "Komet" was sunk, only an engine and a few blueprints got to Japan but it was enough to reverse-engineer some prototypes.

 

[tom!]

There are still some mysteries about Japanese medium/heavy tank development. Here's a photo from 16 Oct 1945 when US troops were destroying Japanese tanks and AFVs in Fuchinobe. The vehicle on the left with what appears to be a Soviet T-28 turret is the experimental Chi-ho medium tank. To the left is an unidentified type.

Hi.

The Chi-Ho used a welded and streamlined version of the Shinhoto(=new turret)-prototype developed for the Type 97 Chi-Ha and also used for the prototype tests of what became the Type 1 Chi-He.


(pic from a Chi-He prototype test using the Shinhoto-prototype)

It had the same MG- port on the lower left of the gun but was riveted.


For the vehicle on the left I asked some experts but noone had a definite answer:
- It could be a Type SS-Ki engineer tank replacement test vehicle. The visible cut in the (rear?) armour reminds of a position of an explosive charge or a flame oil tank.
- Some say it could be a prototype for the Experimental 7 cm Gun Tank Ku-Se but I doubt that. The differences to the known details of the basic vehicle (Type 5 Light Tank) are too large.
- Another guess was an Experimental 4 cm Gun Tank Ho-Ru prototype but the details don´t fit, too.


I know a lot of japanese armored vehicles but none really fits to the details on the pic. So at the moment it remains a mystery for me, too


Regarding the Heavy Tanks:
All AFAIK: The official development program for multiturret heavy tanks was shut down in 1935 and not reopened before 1939 after the desaster at Nomonhan. So these are either artist impressions of what-if tanks or at best inofficial studies by japanese manufacturers.

Yours

tom!

 

[Dilandu]

For the vehicle on the left I asked some experts but noone had a definite answer:
- It could be a Type SS-Ki engineer tank replacement test vehicle. The visible cut in the (rear?) armour reminds of a position of an explosive charge or a flame oil tank.
- Some say it could be a prototype for the Experimental 7 cm Gun Tank Ku-Se but I doubt that. The differences to the known details of the basic vehicle (Type 5 Light Tank) are too large.
- Another guess was an Experimental 4 cm Gun Tank Ho-Ru prototype but the details don´t fit, too.

Could it be a mock-up of some project, which get into a bunch of other machinery slated for demolition?

 

[Listy]

You may read some info from Maiwaffentrager's blog or somewhere else, which I seriously doubt any credibility.
I would assume that these names show some certain design features, rather than factory names, I'll explain now.

What Maiwftrgr. said Ai-96, Mitsu-97, Mitsu-104, Ishi-108, have names to imply factory, which I don't believe.

I think these are misinformation about tank configuration.

一砲塔(one-turreted)→イチ(ichi, means one)→Aichi or A "ichi"(far-fetched)

三砲塔(three-turreted)→ミツ(mitsu, means three)→Mitsubishi(far-fetched)

五砲塔(five-turreted)→イツ(itsu, means five)→イシ(ishi, mis-written)→Ishikawajima(Far-fetched)

And so far, my explaination did work well on heavy tanks:
Ai-96(one-turreted)

Mitsu-97(three-turreted)

Mitsu-104(three-turreted)

Ishi-108(five-turreted)

Actually these tanks could be IJA document about foreign tank developments circa early 1930s. When Allies intelligence found them, they were granted "Japanese secret weapons".

Yet I can't figure out how these numbers after names meaning, but I can say that these numbers definitely not for year designed/adopted.

My opinion about Maiwaffentrager?
DO NOT TRUST ANYTHING HE/SHE SAID
Because he/she had been caught making up "archive photos" by censoring unrelated document data pages, several times.

Once I caught Maiwaffentrager 3 or 4 years ago, he/she was posting a snapshot claimed to be "Mitsubishi secret file about Type 90 MBT protection estimation".
While I found out that actually he/she took a page from declassified Type 10 MBT design report, put heavy censoreship on Japanese Kanji text, left only numbers to be seen, and inverted the image black&white colour.
In fact that page is discussion about different tank optic lense sizes and their pros & cons. He/she left those size numbers, claiming it's armour thickness equivalent against KE-munition.
When I busted it out, he/she apologized immediatly, and deleted everything could be evidence against himself/herself.

Another time last year, Maiwaffentrager was caught again, posting a snapshot of "Japanese patent of un-manned turret tank design", turned out to be a Bofors AB patent, with all those annotation erased.

Anyways, never trust. And bust it up if you can.

Hi,

Those pictures are from my book Forgotten Tanks and Guns.

They're drawn from original Japanese plans recovered by the British in the 1930's. The British translated the names and designations at that time. These can be viewed in the following files at Kew:

• WO 208/1320 Armoured fighting vehicles; characteristics and performance with photographs and drawings.
• WO 208/1325 Armoured fighting vehicles; heavy tanks

Feel free to nip along there, check the files yourself, the original plans are still in there as far as I know.

As to what the plans are for is another question.

My book is now three years old, so now info has slowly come to light since publishing (which I note in my forward on the 2nd edition that is about to come out). I suspect that most of these are perspective designs for a requirement. We now know the Ishi-108 is a copy/paste of a A1e1 Independent plan, even down to duplicating the mistakes of the original drawing.

Some of the designs in the book did make it into service as some of them have been found, and still survive in a fashion. We have no new evidence on the heavies entering service though. But I do note in my book we have some anecdotal evidence that suggest the Type 97 may have been built in very small numbers, and likely never left the home islands and then was scrapped.