|
el cid again -> RE: Japanese Ordnance Material of WW II (7/12/2007 1:30:46 AM)
|
This site is slightly more respectful of Japanese tanks than is normal in the West - but it has missed some salient points.
a) Japanese armor was DERIVED FROM Western vehicles - and in that sense does NOT differ from them in concept - but often was (as reverse enginering usually is) somewhat improved. Confusion arises because these vehicles were often used for a long time - and because terminology is misleading. Thus - a "tankette" in Japan is very similar to its Western counterparts - but by WWII we didn't call them "tankettes" any more - and in some cases they were no longer tracked.
No one thinks a Bren Carrier is silly - but a Japanese tankette is ridiculed. The concept was that this was to be an ammunition carrier - not a front line vehicle - and there was provision to carry ammunition boxes (or two soldiers) in the original form - at the rear. If you think of a Japanese "tankette" as an "ammo carrier", a Japanese "light tank" as a tracked armored car, and a Japanese "medium tank" as a light tank - and a Japanese "heavy tank" as a medium tank, the way they were used makes more sense.
b) Japanese armor led the world in development of diesel engines - and diesel engines for cold weather operation. This became virtually universal post WWII - but Japan developed it PRE WWII. Diesel is far less prone to fires and somewhat more fuel efficient. This was part of a broader trend to diesel in military vehicles - which Japan pioneered - and which eventually the world imitated. Civilian vehicles might use other fuels as well - coal gas for example. Yet another fuel technology - being investigated again now in the USA - was conversion of coal to a liquid fuel. Japanese vehicle technology was oriented toward reducing the requirement of petroleum distillates as a strategic requirement. It is at least an interesting concept - and might become much more so if the cost of gasoline and diesel continues to rise.
c) Japanese vehicles of all sorts were "self fueling" - or could be. By law ALL civilian vehicles had to be - and were.
But military vehicles could be - appropriately fitting. A number of schemes were used - the most common being a wood burning fuel conversion device mounted on the vehicle (which made a usable fuel).
|
|
|
|
