Fixing Japanese Tank Balance


Ha-Go
BR worthiness: BR I
Changes Needed
1 Swap the 37mm Type 94 Tank Gun (575m/s) with 37mm Type 98 37mm Gun (704m/s)
Ha-Go’s initially used the Type 94 but after 1938, all Ha-Go’s had the Type 98 gun.
2 Model Face Hardenned Armour into the game because it used FHA not RHA which would give it substantial buff against low caliber machine guns compared to RHA. For example When M2 .50 cal penetrates 19-20mm of RHA at 500 yards, it would only penetrate 15mm of FHA and Ha-Go had 12-13mm of FHA

::::

Next on the progression line should be the…
Type 2 Ka-Mi
BR worthiness: BR I
Changes needed
Model its Face Hardenned armour

::::

Type 97 Chi-Ha
BR worthiness: BR I
Changes needed
1 Model its Face Hardenned Armour, right now its possible to penetrate it with .50 cal at a distance but with this change, .50 cal wouldnt penetrate even at point blank range under the most ideal conditions, even against its side armour
2 Should be a main tech tree tank

:::

Chi-Ha Kai
BR worthiness: BR I
Changes needed
1 Model its Face Hardenned Armour, right now its possible to penetrate it with .50 cal at a distance but with this change, .50 cal wouldnt penetrate even at point blank range under the most ideal conditions, even against its side armour
2 Should be a main tech tree tank

:::

Type 1 Chi-He
BR worthiness: BR II
Changes Needed
1 Model its Face Hardenned Armour, will make it much harder to penetrate with 37mm non capped AP US rounds or Soviet non capped 45mm AP rounds.

:::

Chi-Ha 12cm Short
BR worthiness: BR II
Chages Needed
1 Move from BR III to BR II
2 Model its Face Hardenned Armour
Can be a premium tank

:::

Type 2 Ho-I
BR worthiness: BR II
Changes Needed
1 Model its Face Hardenned Armour, will make it much harder to penetrate with 37mm non capped AP US rounds or Soviet non capped 45mm AP rounds.

:::

Type 3 Chi-Nu
BR Worthiness: BR III
Changes Needed
1 Model its Face Hardenned Armour, will make it much harder to penetrate with 37mm non capped AP US rounds or Soviet non capped 45mm AP rounds.
2 Add its missing Toku Kou AP Shell (6.64kg at 683m/s) which according to japanese tank usage manual from May 1945 says could penetrate frontal M4 Sherman hull armour from 600m and up to 800m vs frontal driver hatch.

:::

Add Type 3 Chi-Nu II
BR Worthiness: BR III
Would be high end BR III tank equivalent to Pz. IV H, less armour but more penetration

:::

Type 4 Chi-To Prototype
BR Worthiness: BR IV
Changes needed
1 Swap the Type 90 sharp pointed HE shell with low TNT amount to Type 4 HE or Type 98 HE shell with 800-900g TNT equivalent which would give it at least double the explosive amount than it currently has, putting it on par with Chi-Nu with Type 3 gun right now in anti infantry effectiveness
2 Add Type 4 APCR (1110m/s, 212mm @ 0m penetration)
Premium Tank since its the pre-production prototype

:::

Add Chi-To Production
BR Worthiness: BR IV
Main Tree since this was the main production version, although 5-6 incomplete tanks were built

:::

Type 5 Chi-Ri
BR Worthiness: BR IV
Changes Needed
1 Reduce BR from V to IV
2 Add Type 1 AP shell for the hull mounted 37mm gun
3 Swap the Type 90 sharp pointed HE shell with low TNT amount to Type 4 HE or Type 98 HE shell with 800-900g TNT equivalent which would give it at least double the explosive amount than it currently has, putting it on par with Chi-Nu with Type 3 gun right now in anti infantry effectiveness
4 Implement the Autoloader properly. 1 Shell in breech, 2 on a rack. 3 consecutive shots at 3.0-3.5 sec reload and when its completely empty, same reload as Chi-To since the loader would be putting it straight into the breech, not on a rack. When not firing the shells, the rack will replenish at same rate as single shell reload when empty.
5 Add Type 4 APCR (1110m/s , 212mm @ 0m penetration)

:::

Add O-I Heavy
All of the tank was built except the turret roof by Early 1943 and it did mobility tests. Whilst no actual pictures of the tank exist, we have details of the mobility test and results to prove it was built and tested to prove its existence. However by mid 1943, Japan also saw no use for it it since it was suppose to be a moving fortress in Manchuria against the Soviet Union after Khalkin Gol but the war has now moved to the Pacific. It was scrapped in Late 1943 for metal which japan was in shortage of. The 150mm Type 96 Howitzer gun uses the same ammunition as the 15cm gun on Ho-Ro tank destroyer but since its a longer barrel howitzer, it shoots shells at medium velocity rather than very low velocity. It wont rely on penetrating tanks but HE derping tanks to destroy them with a long reload. It has 150mm frontal armour so its not too overpowered, 90mm on M26 will be sufficient with APCR to reliably pen, super pershing with 90mm APCBC or IS-2’s 122mm APHE will easily penetrate it, without needing APCR. In all honesty, if it got added in War Thunder it would be nothing too crazy, 5.7BR worthy.
The 150mm Type 96 Howitzer was also used as artillery piece in the field by the Japanese Forces so the gun itself, US was already familiar with and with its APHE shell, recorded a penetration of 125mm @ 250 yards. Nothing special, better off using the HE shell.
BR worthiness: BR V


Theres already a War Thunder model for it

:::

Change needed for all tanks
Fix non capped AP shell performance, this applies to these tank and every other tank in the game, but since japan relies on AP shells, its especially significant for japan.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/hLPH8HLThguu
This would significantly boost japanese shell penetration performance, especially vs armour at high angles.

8 Likes

I mean all cool changes, however in this case, I think you will likely need an irl source to back up your findings there. Especially for the ammo changes and the armour characteristics.

Otherwise, yeah fuck, its actually criminal the Chi Ha isnt tech tree, it would be like making the Tiger 1 or Pz4’s all premium, its just wrong on a fundamental level.

2 Likes

Tbh most of changes on tank model should be suggest to War Thunder since Enlisted dev don’t really care.

Where did you get this data? Na-To only fires this shell at 930m/s. It is hard to believe that Chi To can fire this shell at much higher velocity despite having similar cannon.

What do you mean there is a War Thunder model for it? The image you post is already quite sometime and it is not a War Thunder model.

Type 4 APCR (4.2kg)
PzGr.40 APCR (4.1kg)

Panzer IV F.2 with L/43 gun has 920m/s
Panzer IV H with L/48 gun has 990m/s
Na-To, Chi-To, Chi-Ri have L/56.4 gun

As you can see… it’s not gonna be a slow APCR

There might be other factor that affect the shell velocity like inferior technology.
So where is the source for 1110m/s?

Why inferior technology

Type 5 75mm could shoot 75mm 6.64kg shell at 850m/s

Panzer IV H could shoot 75mm 6.8kg shell at only 770m/s

The inferior technology is the panzer IV H here and it’s APCR already does 990m/s

This assume Japan APCR technology is as good as German one.
But Japan barely have APCR in WW2.
What if the quality of the shell is bad so it cannot achieve high velocity in the test?
What if they reduce propellent for the round?

So where is the source of 1110m/s?

Japan and Germany had technology sharing

Pak41 with APCNR ammunition was known as Type Ge 75mm cannon in Japan.

Type 4 APCR was most proabably also a German copy

Quality of the shell has nothing to do with muzzle velocity

The propellant and gun barrel length is the important part regards to muzzle velocity

And what makes you think that they can perfectly copy German design?

Maybe the quality of shell is bad so the gun has problem with it if fire at high velocity so they need to use reduced propellent?

And still no source for the 1110m/s.

1110m/s is a calculation based on
L/43 = 920m/s
L/48 = 990m/s
L/56.4 would result in 1110m/s

Did War Thunder approve such calculation? If not, this is still useless.

War thunder just copied and pasted velocity from Pz IV F.2 APCR despite it being L/56.4 barrel on Chi-To compared to L/43 on Pz IV F.2

But Panzer 4 F2 has 919m/s in War Thunder instead of 930m/s.

Yes but still more or less copy and pasted

So how do you prove it is copy pasted in the first place?
Having similar velocity still doesn’t mean it is copy paste.

Because even the trashy small barrel 75mm M3 on sherman has 870m/s for its APCR

US 76.2mm Gun which shoots 6.6kg AP at 792m/s is already capable of shooting 4.2kg APCR at 1036m/s
Japanese 75mm shoots 6.64kg AP at 850m/s and it also has 4.2kg APCR, 930m/s is BS

It’s not like they can’t reduce the propellent.
Maybe this is just a failed shell with unsatisfactory performance.

why would they. The propellent cartidge case remains the same as for the AP shell

These are 37mm cartidge cases for different japanese 37mm guns.
The shell is the same for all the guns, the cartidge case is different depending on the gun its used on.
This means that even 75mm gun which shoots AP shell at 850m/s will use the same propellent case, only difference is the ammunition piece itself is changed.

37mm Type 94 tank gun could fire Type 94 AP at 575m/s with 5.3 inch propellent cartridge.
37mm Type 98 tank gun fired the same Type 94 AP shell at 704m/s, but the difference is the Type 98 used the 6.53 inch propellent case.

You cant shuv 6.53 inch proppelent case inside type 94 tank gun and you wouldnt be able to use 5.3 inch proppelent case for type 98 gun cuz every gun is chambered for specific propellent cartridges.

:::

US M1 76.2mm L/52 gun
Shoots 6.8kg AP at 792m/s
Shoots 4.2kg APCR at 1036m/s

Both rounds use the same cartridge propellent case. the reason why the APCR has higher muzzle velocity is because its much lighter at 4.2kg compared to 6.8kg for the AP

Japanese Type 5 75mm L/56.4
Shoots 6.64kg Toku Kou AP at 850m/s
With same propellent charge do you think the velocity would only be 930m/s if the weight of the APCR is 4.2kg compared to 6.64kg on the AP?

1 Like

How do you know that in the first place?

Weird example, you should prove different types of shell use the same propellent case, not the same shell fired by different gun.