@@andreadalcortivo747 The speeds is a close matchup, top speed of an M4 sherman varies between 24-29 mph depending on the variant and terrain (according to britannica). Top speed of a Type 95 is around 25-28 mph depending on terrain. Idk if it could outflank the Sherman before it got hit though since even if it were faster, the turret speed of the Sherman is around 24 degrees/sec which is pretty fast. Combine that with it maneuvering in reverse and its thicker armor would make it pretty one sided. Maybe the only thing the Type 95 had going for it was that it's also small so maybe it'd be hard to hit it while moving.
His war experiences change episode to episode, the only things that're consistent is that he was in the Pacific in WW2, in Korea, and in one or both he was in the navy
Uh, DUDE? That 37mm uses a CANISTER ROUND! It's a big SHOTGUN SHELL! Do your damn research! It also has an HE round! And ANY tank is a threat to unsupported infantry!
It's not propaganda.I have read enough history to know that this did occur. It's quite a well known battle in terms of Pacific battles - read up on it. The reason the Japanese had sub-par tanks was not because they were bad designers (look at the Zero), but the policy in place within the Japan Army was never modified after the invasion of China - although their border disputes with Russia should have made them think twice. But again, policy was the issue. The Japanese used tanks as infantry support vehicles in China, where they did very well - because the Chinese had very little in the way of armor. They were essentially fast moving artillery/machine gun platforms, for which a small light tank is well suited. It can move fast, keep up with the infantry and fire its cannon into pillboxes and lay down suppressing fire with its MGs. The Japanese failed to anticipate meeting heavier tanks, and didn't adapt until it was too late.
As I stated, they were not bad designers (not concerning the Zero), for the most part, just unwilling to adapt (regarding tanks and infantry weapons). Japanese armor was a low priority, most steel etc. going to the navy. And the 95 Ha-Go was superior to US armor when it was introduced in 1936. The US only introduced the Stuart in 1941, which is comparable to the 95 Ha-Go. But, that is where they stopped, in the 30s. Tactically the Japanese thought of the tank as an infantry support weapon, not as something used to fight other tanks. Their doctrine was not in line with the reality of the war. That and they didn't envision the allied forces possibly using tanks during the island campaigns. Japan only began to build heavier tanks towards the end of the war, when it seemed that an invasion of the mainland was inevitable. You can see the same with the Germans and the T-34. They knew a lot about armor warfare, but they let their initial sense of superiority over the Soviets cloud their need to keep ahead of the game.
Ha-Go wasn't an awful tank, it was successful for its designated purpose which was infantry support. Much like the Stuart tank. Honestly getting Sherman tanks onto the islands during the Pacific War was a testament to the competency of the U.S. Navy's logistics teams. Had the Empire of Japan had the capacity to maneuver heavier tanks into the same areas they would have, and this may have been a different story.
Japanese tanks were not designed for the small islands, but for the war with mainland China, the USSR and European colonies in South-Eastern Asia. Chi-Ha and Ha-Go were average tanks in 1939, but by 1943 Japanese tanks became obsolete.
@@RotgerValdes I never said the Japanese tanks were designed for island warfare. I said that they were designed for infantry support and were light enough to be transported to the islands. The Imperial navy lacked sufficient sealift capabilities to match heavier tank deployments to fight the US Navy/US Marines.
There were Ha-Go tanks on some of the islands. One of them on Tarawa managed to hit a Sherman on its barrel and put the main gun out of action. That was the last thing it accomplished as the second Sherman coming up made short work of it.
Not to mention production issues between heavy vs light tanks. The cost to make one heavy tank would’ve been equivalent to that of three light ones. But making a single heavy tank would also take more time to produce in a factory compared to three light tanks, not to mention the costs of maintaining it on the battlefield would’ve been equal to that of six light tanks both in terms of resource consumption and maintenance. That’s why the Tiger tank, even though it was equal to 10 Shermans, costed as much to care for as 15 panzer iv tanks from refueling and replacing parts.
The Imperial Japanese Army were pretty enthusiastic with adopting tanks. The problem for their armor development, was that Japan, as with any other country, had limited resources. The army had to put other priorities and armor development stagnated. Do recall that Japan had been mired for years of warfare in mainland China, as they invaded in 1937 and bought off more than they could chew. The IJA had newer medium tanks also. "Why didn't the Japanese have bigger, better, heavier tanks?" Because when you look at the enemies Japan expected to fight in Asia, i.e. China, there was no need to have some massive super heavy tank. In addition, what good is something as big, clumsy, heavy as a Tiger going to do in the Pacific Islands, Southeast Asia, Burma where there's nothing but hills, jungle, dense terrain? Not to mention such machines need a lot of maintenance and good logistics, something that Japan did horrible in throughout WWII. Japan had big problems maintaining and supporting their combat aircraft in far flung places, so heavy armor with complicated machinery were going to be even worse.
They put a lot of their metals for the navy. Do recall that IJA and IJN hates each other pretty much. Japanese imperial military was rife with political struggle
@@luxeternity and their Airforce which my grandfather who was eleven or thirteen at the time said swarmed the skies earlier in the war, outnumbering the American and Filipino planes 2:1. Southeast Asian ground battles are mostly infantry and artillery battles due to unsteady terrain. In the Art of War, you must fight where you are most advantageous.
This was one of the fiercest battles in the Pacific war. The Japanese counter attacked with tanks and after they were destroyed the Americans launched a daring exposed charge across the open airfield which the Japanese had the airfield pre zeroed with Machine guns and Artillery and mortar fire. The crossing of the airfield saw an immense amount of casualties sustained, amounting to 900 Americans. It was a bloody day
When facing the Type 95, Sherman crews soon learned that the Japanese tank's armour is so thin the regular APCBC round can go right through without dealing any real damage or triggering the round's fuse. So they started using HE rounds
Yeah...that's what an AP round is SUPPOSED TO DO. And AP doesn't have a fuse. It's just a solid shot. You should get your information from somewhere other than world of twats.
@@mattz1230 Armour piercing rounds with a bursting charge indeed have a fuse. I think there has been a misunderstanding. I referred to AP rounds in general (including APCBC with a HE filler), not to the actual type of round (aka solid shot AP)
These are the most authentic looking Ha-Gos I've seen in movie making yet. Gotta wonder how they did that? I have photos of my Dad on Saipan with a knocked out Ha-Go. For all it's shortcomings I always thought it was a pretty cool tank. I have a WW2 publication covering Japanese armor and in it they praised lots of it's design features like self aligning bearings.
Whatever they use, real tanks, customized tanks or CGI... There's also some detail that's not just right. In the Band of Brothers episode, Crossroads I think, the hidden Tiger's turret moves way too quickly. These light Japanese tanks also seem to move too nimble (at times). At least its turret movements look ok.
The Ha-Go tank in this video is a 1933 design, built to provide infantry support vs ill equipped Chinese. If you want to compare US tank to the Japanese one. Compared it to the Type 3 Chi-Nu which can acually penetrate the Tiger I and has more devastating post penetration effect
+Jan Florovic The Ha Go had more issues than being outdated. Many of the tanks during that time were known to be better than any tank made from Japan. Also Sherman's comparison with the Chi Nu? The Sherman wins. The Chi Nu has 50mm of flat armor in the front compared to the Sherman's 92mm of effective armor in the front. The side armor is weaker than the Sherman. The 75mm on the Chi Nu has nothing special. Its just a Japanese version of the Sherman's 76mm gun. The Sherman had a Gyro Stabilizer which helps it shoot while it moves. Also it was made of car parts. When it was knocked out in battle it could be repaired within 23 hours. The Chi Nu had none of those. Also you're wrong. Trying to penetrate the Tiger with the Chi Nu's 75 is almost impossible unless the crew gets super close to its front hull. Ofcourse the Tiger will spot the Chi Nu first and destroy it before it comes close enough to get a shot.
+chan young Choi Type 3 75mm gun: Early APHE: 70mm at 1000m Type 1 Tokku Kou APHE: 100mm at 500m Thing is Panzer IV also had 50mm armour but it's fun was good and so was Type 3 75mm. Using the Tokku Kou shell, Shermans armour was nothing special. Btw only 75mm armed Shermans were deployed in Pacific. Anyways Germans would of done better if they built more panzer IV's that the over engineered tigers and panthers that took long to built and were more expensive. If Japan was able to built Chi-Nu's in the thousands then that's good enough tank. I mean Panzer IV was still relevant in 1945.
All this talk about tigers. If the Japanese were building Tiger tanks, it would have been like... "Hey Sarge, during low tide we saw this weird looking turret sticking out of the sand"
Actually, Japanese had tigers. A group of Japanese tankers went to Germany to train on tigers, while the two government had talks about producing under license the heavy tank in Japan. It went into nothing, but in one moment during the war there are tiger tanks property of the Imperial Army with Japanese insigna and crew. In the middle of Europe.
they actually did once. It was cancelled after they learn the cost of delivering Tiger from German to Japan cost them twice than the original price German propose.
Idiots didn't befriend china which was a pure nationalist that will kill communists and already a partner of germany. If Japan, china and Germany were allies during ww2 then this will be a different story
@Johnson Tamati why? Who cares what his granddad did? It's irrelevant in the context of this video. How can you be proud of something that you yourself did not accomplish? It's called fishing for compliments - or in this case, upvotes. Funny how pissed of everyone in the US gets if you not reflexively apploud everyone mentioning someone in his wider family served. Like yourself. That's why stolen valor is such a big thing here like nowhere else in the world. How do you know his granddad serverd? Maybe he told you bullshit. And now you caps-shouted at a stranger on the internet because another stranger told you his granddad serverd. And you don't know both of us or our story. It's quite laughable, acutally.
Sherman in the European theater: *Cant even penetrate the armor of German tanks* Sherman in the Pacific theater: I am fluent in 1,000 ways of kicking your ass.
Sherman had no issue penetrating Mark III and IV. 76mm Sherman could penetrate Panther at normal combat ranges. Definitely problems with the Tiger until Pershing and M36 TD came along.
Unlike what some commentators here are saying, this is NOT "propaganda". The Japanese did indeed use tanks against American forces during the battle of Saipan. Most of them were destroyed by either American bazookas or American tank guns. And, the historical fact is that America really did win this battle. So, I really don't understand why some folks here are insisting this is "propaganda".
cobracurse I agree with you - I have read enough history to know that this did occur (anyone reading any of the books by the likes of Eugene Sledge etc. will know that this did occur). The reason the Japanese had sub-par tanks was not because they were bad designers, but the policy in place within the Japan Army was never modified after the invasion of China, although their border disputes with Russia should have made them think. The Japanese used tanks as infantry support vehicles in China, where they did very well, because the Chinese had very little in the way of armor. They were essentially fast moving artillery/machine gun platforms, for which a small light tank is well suited. The Japanese never adapted to meet the doctrine of armor vs. armor warfare as was experienced very early on in Europe by all sides. It was only towards the very end of the war that they did build something that might be comparable to a Sherman - but it was too little to late.
+Ulfrik Vlademirsson (Ulfrik inn Allharðr) The Chi-Nu was the one kept in defence of the home islands and , like the man said never saw combat as a result; the best actually to see action were type 97 Chi-Ha's, basically the same but mostly armed with a low-velocity 57mm (good against infantry and buildings but nearly useless against tanks) and a handful with better-velocity 47mm's. There were also a variety of SPG's of various kinds dotted about in small numbers that could be considered tank destroyers at a pinch
The Ha-Go wasn't a bad tank at all, best tank in 1935 when they were built, but they had to soldier on until the end, when they were 10 years old. But the Japanese knew how to use them, and they had a lot of them. They were simply obsolete
The Japanese had a very good anti-tank gun the Type1 47mm. These guns were very effective against all US armor at fairly short ranges and made a very good anti-boat gun.
Yes, but the Type 1 was not fielded until 1945 IIRC. It was used in some numbers on Okinawa, where as you say it was effective. Okinawa was the first Pacific battle in which substantial numbers of Shermans were destroyed by Japanese antitank weapons. As a result, it was decided to rush some M-26 Pershing heavy tanks to the island, but Japanese resistance crumbled just as they arrived and so they didn't see combat on Okinawa. They would have been right in the thick of it if the landings in the Home Islands had gone off as planned.
@@williamjpellas0314 and luckily they didnt. as the M26 is notoriously bad at mountainous and soft terrain like during the Korean war i think it is one of the reason for the development of the m46 the first Patton tank cuz of the deficiency of the M26. and the Centurion tank is much better in those condition.
Have never been in combat - after watching this , thank God I never was - have the highest respect for those who were - not difficult to understand that those who do return are forever changed.
The Type 95 Ha-Gō was a light tank used by the Empire of Japan during the Second Sino-Japanese War, at Nomonhan against the Soviet Union, and in the Second World War. It proved sufficient against infantry but, like the American M3 Stuart light tank, was not designed to combat other tanks such as the famous American M4A2 Sherman Medium Tank. Approximately 2,300 Type 95's were produced, making it the most numerous Japanese armoured fighting vehicle of the Second World War.
They worked great against infantry that didn't have good anti-tank capabilities. A unit of Ha-Gos made a breakthrough in Malaya that rolled up British Commonwealth forces to a considerable depth. Two of them were landed at Milne Bay where they overran the Australian infantry who had only sticky bombs that wouldn't stick because of the humidity. They probably could have done a lot more in that battle if they hadn't sunk in the mud and been abandoned.
nope, the view on the Type 95 Ha-Go is terrible for any of the crew in it. Granted it is a 1930's tank where keeping moving can be considered a better defence than any armour. Speacialy when you only have 13mm of it.
Indeed they are and it kept them alive for about a minut longer. It wasn't till the infantryman on the rear of the tank was killed there was no one to tell them where are the enemies and more importantly, where is the damn road. I base this on the idea it's an infantry light tank designed with a button installed on the rear, which let the commander know someone either wanted contact or wanted a ride. If you wanna see something truely incompenent tank warfare I highly recomment the tank sceen from the movie "My way" ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-g3_lo4JL3lQ.html Let's take some high speed BT-5 or 7 and slowly drive into formations of suicide bomber infantry.
American tankers almost never faced Tigers -- they just thought that they did. Adolf kept sending his tigers against the British... and Soviets. US GIs always conflated the Mark IV panzer with the Mark VI panzer. Even the common Mark IV could shoot up an M-4 Sherman tank.
@@ered203 Adolf fought against the British during WWI. He always rated the British to be, man-for-man, his ultimate enemy. (His generals didn't feel that way.) His deep opinion is why, time and again, Adolf kept sending his best stuff against the British: V-1; V-2; jagpanther, king tiger, 1SS Panzer Corps, and so forth. The British were constantly facing cutting edge Nazi weapons -- and often the only nation to do so. (V-1s) The Bulge offensive was aimed at destroying the 2nd British Army and the 21st Army Group. Adolf thought that such a feat would be enough to swing the Western Front his way. This was pretty strange thinking because by November 1944, the Americans were by far the bigger threat. Until The Bulge, the US Army simply did not fight the first string Nazi divisions -- with but a few exceptions. This historical reality drives Canadians and Brits rather crazy -- seventy-five-years after Normandy. Patton punched through precisely because the Nazi A-team was facing Monty. Monty never picked up on the fact that their defense proved that his narrow-front strategic scheme could never work. Caen WAS a narrow front drive, and it never got in to first gear. Adolf could always cork off a narrow front attack. This is something that Ike and Zhukov figured out -- pretty early on.
Over arching military strategy for Japan in WW2 was quick, aggressive war, take massive areas under their control, then defend against assault. Their light tanks fit into their overall idea of how they wanted to fight war.
@Kuhlfurst M3 is a scout tank. The high profile allow it to spot enemy over hills and other obstacles. It actually better than or equal to its German counterparts. Such as the Panzer I/II, both design as infantry support/scout armor. Panzer III was built to fight tanks and the Panzer IV, earlier model, was built solely for infantry support. It was not fast enough to be a scout.
In the late 30s George Marshall made some decisions that greatly contributed to America's success in fighting a global war. One decision was committing to the Sherman. The Sherman was an adequate tank in all theaters we fought in, and of course was superior in the Pacific. We mass-produced them. It is true that we had trouble with the German tanks. But we had trouble with the Germans, period. They were highly experienced and had weapons a level above ours. One example is the quad 20 AA/infantry support gun you see at the end of Saving Private Ryan. Another are the various armored vehicles you see in the Carentan battle in Band of Brothers. Many of those weapons were improvised using captured Czech tank chassis. Anyway, this is a great war scene, and this is a great series.
@@peterson7082 as in if you were to take the 75 mm version of a sherman and put it 1 on 1 against the most commonly known German tank (tigers, panthers etc) the sherman would have trouble getting past their front armor or survive getting shot. The strenghts of the Sherman were the adaptability of the frame and how easy to produce it was, its design took advantage of the US industrial might, meaning it was faster to build, you could make many and you always had spare parts to fix it. The Germans had excellent vehicles on paper (if we look at guns and armor only) but didn't have the indistrial capacity needed to build them fast enough or have spare parts when needed. Also, once German engenieers started increasing the weight of the tanks mobility and reliability became a big issue. TLDR: US logistics were superior to German ones and the Sherman took advantage of that. Edit: lots of grammar mistakes in here, sorry.
Ha-Go Ke-Go those were actually good for Japan, small tanks on Small islands, those smaller tanks could out manoeuvre shermans and Proved to be good on ambushs and surprise attacks on early tage of war in Pacific
M3 Stuarts ate their lunch repeatedly in the Philippine campaign in 42 in any sort of fight. Faster, better armed, and slightly better armored but almost always better supported and led. The Japanese quickly lost any illusion their armor had much of a chance against Western/Soviet armor and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Maneuver and swarms of determined infantry tank killer teams was their tactic of choice in such situations.
They were good at the time of their introduction but as time moved on, it's became quickly outclassed and they couldn't be replaced due to...well multiple reasons with the most notable being pity rivalry, lack of resources, etc. Also, you do realize they match the Sherman in terms of speed...right?
I saw an old Japanese tank at Nimitz museum in Fredricksburg, Tx many years ago. It was shot all over with rifle fire and a big hole blown in it's side.
That's why tank is the key player on the battlefield in WW2. Without some sort of Anti-tank weapon, they can basically roll over infantry like nothing. Nowadays, with the dominance of air power, not so much.
Yes and no. You still need boots on the ground to hold territory. Those boots need armored vehicles because the enemy boots has them. Both sides have AA and both sides have Anti Tank. That's why combined warfare exists.
The Japanese tanks were not very tough or fast or even that mechanically reliable...but imagine the heart of the Japanese tankers who had Togo up against Stuart's, Lee's and of course, the Sherman's.
I love how some of the comments here actually praise any tank even the ha go, It makes me happy as I honestly thought I was the only one who viewed the Ha Go as a tank that does its job for what it could do. Try not to give the poor Ha Go too much hate, after all it did its job for what it could do.
Eh, I prefer the Pacific. BoB is amazing but I find the Pacific Theater in general to be more interesting. It's often over looked by the European Front.
Actually the Tiger and even the King Tiger were quite agile for such a large heavy tank when running properly. Because of their wide tracks, they presented a low ground pressure and could fare against soft ground pretty good. But they were slow and very fuel thirsty and stood no chance against Allied air support.
No... the M4 Sherman's 75mm was a better infantry support tank than the Pershing. No question. The 75mm HE was superb in its role, had a fast rate of fire as well. The TWO .30 cal MG's (turret and front hull) had thousands of rounds of ammo, and if needed the .50 cal Browning on top could be brought to bear as well. Oh, and the M4 Sherman's 75mm had an AP round plenty enough to deal with Japanese armor too. Bring in the logistics equation of having the added weight of the Pershing in a sandy or soft jungle atmosphere, the extra effort needed to get the added size and weight to shore, the cost of the Pershing... and I think the M4 Sherman and the M3 Stuart did extremely well and both suited the was in the Pacific better than the Pershing. Sure, the Pershing could take enemy AT rounds better, but against the Japanese that was a moot point. Now, on the more open ranges of Europe and maybe even the Ost Front of 1946... oh yeah, bring in the Pershing without question. ;)
@@SmokinLoon5150 US tankers found that AP rounds sliced straight through Ha-Gos. HE rounds worked much better, as they would just blow them apart, as shown in this clip.
@ThePerfectRed You obviously didn't watch the entire mini series. There were plenty of Americans shown to die. The Pacific was perhaps the most unglorified and realisitic view of the war ever.
In reality, you didn't need a tank or even heavy weapons to defeat the Type 95 due to how badly designed it was. - It was so lightly armoured that armour piercing shells passed right through it without exploding (which led to Shermans continually firing at them due to the perceived lack of damage) and a 50 cal M2 just shredded it apart. - An infantryman could easily disable the tank with a well placed shot to the rear of the crudely built tread assembly. - The tank had massive blind spots and could really only see what was directly in front of it. Its very narrow viewing ports could be suppressed with machine gun fire and the hand cranked turret could be jammed by placing a sturdy enough object into the gap between the turret and the hull. - It was much, much slower than American tanks. The M3 could easily outrun it and the M4 could comfortably keep pace with it. As such, they were often outflanked since it was impossible for them to retreat in battle. - Its blind spots made it easy for enemies to literally just walk up to the tank and either fire into its lightly armoured engine or drop a grenade into its easily uncovered oil cylinder.
@@royalhistorian5109 no, that argument falls flat in the face of real world logic. "it's a game" is no excuse when real world events (WWII in this case) are presented in videogame form. There has to be some form of accuracy.
@@AllGamingStarred Are you serious? Can you tell the difference between real life and a video game? Also, you forgot that COD world at war used real footage...real footage to put together their own story and it works because it helps the viewer connect with the actual war and make them become interested in history. They did the same thing with Black Ops 1 and Cold War so...you completely forgot about that. Like, dude...do your own research before you post something stupid it's not that hard.
the "greatest" generation (of which my father was inclusive of) may they soles rest in heaven, be heard on earth and be a leader in "both" in defense of our nation and our national security...
there was a interesting design flaw in the Ha-Go, due to the turret shape and placement, if was possible to jam a bajoney into the turretring, jamming the turret and basically disabeling the tank with a knife. I do not know if it happened, but a brit took out a german armored car using an umbrella. So it isn't that far fetched.
The Chi Nu was absolutely pathetic. Its best armor was only the 50mm of effective armor in the front. Its top speed was only 39km/h which was pretty much abysmal for the its weight. The heavier Sherman and the T-34 could reach 45-50km/h. The only thing good about the Chi Nu was its gun The Chi To and Chi Ri had a good gun and mobility. But they were not well protected. For some reason the Japanese had 0 interest on using sloped armor. It had 75mm of armor in the front but it wasn't sloped which made it less protected than the Sherman's 92mm of effective armor. Also due to their huge size they were easy for the enemies to spot.
chan young Choi i'm not sure whether your knowledge relies on WoT or not, but actually Chi-Nu never has transferred to oversea, due to the poor infrastructure of Japan at that time. Railway, gantry crane at ports, transport ships and all other infrastructures couldn't have afford to carry heavy weaponry such as M4 or T-34 sized tanks, but very small tanks such as Chi-Ha, Chi-He, and artillery. The reason why they kept building paper-thin armored weaponry, was because of lack of technology to build strong horse power engines like US, USSR, and Germany. Due to the lack of gasoline, Japanese imperial Army ordered to build self propelled weaponry with diesel engine, since the diesel fuel is a bit easier to get and more safer than gasoline, though the diesel technology was not as good as USSR. as a result, they got weak horse powered diesel engine with bigger mass than that of gasoline engine. since the engine is bigger, the total size of machine should become bigger, but since the horse power of engine is weak, the thickness of armor should be thin. well, i don't know why japanese army didn't build sloped armored vehicle. just as a blue print vehicle, "Type 5 experimental tank destroyer" has sloped armor and it was being developed, but the war had been ended while the first prototype was under constructing. Therefore, the strongest tank of Japanese Imperial Army, was M 3 Stuart, ironically:( this is a sad moment to talk about japanese tanks for me.
charly345mstlneo In which part did I say that the Chi Nu was transferred? All I said was that the Chi Nu sucked. Yes I know that Japan lacked on resources. That does not make the Chi Nu a good tank. This BB Hiei guy just posted out the tanks Japan had which were clearly garbage compared to the tanks the Allies had.
Yeah but honestly if the Japanese fought primarily in non-island environments then they may have made tanks in a heavy setup like the Tiger but these tanks were only to support infantry.
50 cals and probably sniper rifles probably could, plus there was a huge weakspot on the back of the tank, the engine compartment was only covered by basically wire, so you could just fire a Thompson machine into that and it would take the engine out and possibly start a fire.
IIRC main use of tanks in Pacific was at Battle of Saipan. Japanese actually launched a tank centered counter attack. It was repulsed with heavy casualties to Japanese.
training videos from ww2 taught soldiers how to disable a Japanese tank with a 30-06 round , you could knock the rear spoke off the track with well placed rifle rounds
Gotta admit. Regardless of how inferior the Ha-Go tank was, seeing one in real life was a treat. It's a kawaii little tank with rather thin armour, compared to other tanks, that still looked pretty badass.
They were meant to be mobile infantry support and transports to go through thick jungles throughout Asia, which they were extremely good at, as seen when they completely over-ran the British in Malaya.
@CitizenJohnSmith This is from the miniseries "The Pacific" which has at least ten 1-hour episodes. If you watch the miniseries you will see many American and Japanese soldiers getting killed and maimed...It is really bloody and horrible to watch at times. You cannot judge the miniseries by just watching 2 minutes of just one episode. The miniseries is based on the two memoirs of U.S. Marines Eugene Sledge and Robert Leckie.
If the hit is from it's side though, which assuming that the camera point of view is the same direction from which the bazooka gunner was aiming from seems to be the case, a hit on the track mid to upper section would also result in penetration of the tank main hull since shaped charge warhead of bazooka can easily punch through the track or the roadwheels plus the armor of the tank hull. if it hits the track lower section then yeah it may sever the track without penetrating the tank main hull.
2.) The V2 was not just an unguided missile. Unprecise rockets for fireworks had already been invented by the chinese thousands of years ago. The V2 was the first missile, which was was more or less precise on far distance, which was totally unique at that time. Other rockets went a few miles at most, this one flew hundreds of miles to England. The revolutionary technique was immediately adapted by the US after the war and brought to the US, and it´s being used until today in all US missiles.