FatR -> RE: ideas (8/12/2011 2:38:28 PM)
|
So, I'm back. quote:
ORIGINAL: Dibbura Tank stuff. In general: not that much can be done here, taking into account RL technical possibilities, and taking Japanese tank forces further in the direction of Panzerwaffe-45 is not something that should be prioritized even assuming extra resources. There is a reason, why Japanese tank production took a dive past 1942. Off the top of my head I can't remember any Pacific War operation in which the outcome would have been changed by replacing all Jap tanks with late-war with Pz.IV (anything heavier would have been very logistically and tactically difficult to use in all of the existing theatres). quote:
ORIGINAL: Dibbura 1. Analyze the experience of war. From Spain, Poland and so on… And for the first part of war, especially Battle of France and Battle of Britain. RL Japanese tank forces, at least their part initally meant for use against China and USSR, already were patterned on pre-1941 German tank forces in terms of tactics and technology. The combination of tanks with low-ballistics anti-infantry guns and smaller-callibre high-ballistics anti-tank guns directly followed the German example. quote:
ORIGINAL: Dibbura 2. Analyze economic, technological innovations. 3. Negotiate for purchase and closer collaboration. Already done to the extent allowed by Japanese capabilities and intermittent communications between the countries. Of course, it was focused primarily on more vital things, like aviation. quote:
ORIGINAL: Dibbura 1. Assault Gun. Not a single assault gun, as Germans meant this term, was built by Japanese during the war. IRL they only built self-propelled guns and tank destroyers with anti-bullet armor (the 150mm SP Ho-Ro howitzer was theoretically ready for production in 1940, the 75mm Type 1 tank destroyer and the 105mm Type 1 howitzer in 1942). Why such paradigm shift, even not taking into account the technical possibility? Which seems very dubious, considering low production run of the designs listed above. It is not like combatting the Allied tank flood was the top priority for Japan, as it was for Germany. Even placing greater importance on anti-tank duties, the only German TD design useful for Japanese even as an inpsiration will be this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzer And I mean as an inspiration for something that can at least theoretically be built on the chassis of the obsolete Type 97 tank. But it was designed rather late in the war. quote:
ORIGINAL: Dibbura 2. More and dedicated AT weapons 47 mm AT evolve to 50 mm evolve to 75mm and then to 90mm+ This can be done by buying same machine for production in Germany. Non-SP AT guns bigger than 50mm are quite difficult to move on the battlefiled, and those bigger than 75mm are practically stationary (can only really change positions by tractor or horses, which is not really an option in the heat of combat, and even less of an option in various island holes). In those cases when the enemy is sufficiently incompetent or overconfident to fail at suppressing such big and immobile direct-fire weapons, it is better to just use flak guns in AT role. Japanese weren't able to produce nearly enough of even their 47mm AT guns anyway. quote:
ORIGINAL: Dibbura 3. Flame tanks You have a point here, but building specialized flame tanks, particularly on the chassis of your second-best mass-produced tank, requires having enough normal tanks for the immediate tasks. It is a luxury which Japanese didn't have IRL. quote:
ORIGINAL: Dibbura Well Japan can make same improvement just from close observation of European War Theater. But, if the cooperation was better: Japan can buy all technology and maybe even 1 assembly line for Panzer III in 1941 and for Panzer IV in 1943. Japan already had the tank equal or slightly better than contemporary versions of Pz.III in late 1940 - 1941 - Type 1 medium. In the middle of 1943, Type 3 tank was ready for production, and it was worse than contemporary versions of Pz.IV mostly thanks to overall technological inferiority of the Japanese industry. The problem was in producing either in any significant numbers and rapidly enough, then making them reach the front. There were some dubious consruction decisions, of course, like stubborn dislike of coaxial MG mounting and failure to introduce belt-fed MGs until the end of the war, but the main problem was general lack of production capabilities. As a side note, both of these tanks are understatted in the game. Following the formula used for other tanks, they should have Armor rating of 60-70. RL problem wasn't that they were too bad, it was inability to actually crank them out, and then make them reach the front. quote:
ORIGINAL: Dibbura 5. Infantry Cooperation with German instructors ... Licensed production of MG 34/MG 42… These will only be available in homeopathic doses, at best. Japanese did try to produce German MGs for the most important roles they had - for installation airplanes - and the production was insufficient. Also, IJA is already facing the herculean task of switching its infantry calibre from 6.5 to 7.7, which IRL wasn't complete by the end of the war (granted, using any remotely serviceable old weapons to arm newly raised troops late in the war didn't help). The only things that are up to discussion here (at least without really in-depth knowledge of Japanese firearms and infantry weapons, which I don't possess), is (a) developing a maximally cheap all-metal SMG design, and producing it in large numbers, instead of mostly disregarding SMGs. Would have helped somewhat in night attack (b) distributing heavier mortars among infantry regiments, instead of keeping them in separate units. quote:
ORIGINAL: Dibbura A bit more half-tracks and maybe creation of small but real mechanized force, with specialized half-tracks (small AT guns, flamethrowers, small inf. guns etc.) Mechanized mobile groups from the elements of 3rd Tank Division were successfully deployed in 1944 against Chinese.
|
|
|
|