Jump to content

Talk:Type 95 Ha-Go light tank

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Specifications box

[edit]

This is unsourced, but, worse, has no units of measurement. --Thatnewguy (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think this tank was the inspiration for the fictional Scorpion Tank of the Command and Conquer Generals video game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.162.121 (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWII Medium and Light Tanks

[edit]

WWII Medium tanks will be 30 tons, give or take. Light tanks will be 10 tons or less (give or tank). The Sherman is, was, and always will be a medium tank. When comparing the IJA Type 95 light tank to other tanks, try to compare it to an allied (in this case US) LIGHT TANK! Some examples are: M2A4 light tank, M3 & M5 (Stuart) light tanks, M24 Chaffee light tanks, M41 Walker Bulldog light tanks (this is the only light tank that is NOT a WWII tank). The M41 fought in the Vietnam War (used only by the South Vietnamese Army).

When you compare the Type 95 light tank to the M4 Sherman medium tank, that is like comparing a VW bug (car) to a full-size pick-up truck or SUV. Or like comparing a dog to a horse (size wise). So try to compare light tanks TO LIGHT TANKS; and comparing medium tanks to medium tanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.160.54 (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Design

[edit]

The following sentence is unsourced and unverified-"The hand-operated turret was small and extremely cramped for even the one crewman normally located there (the commander), and was only being able to rotate in a 45 degree forward arc, leaving the back to be covered by the rear-facing machine gun which failed to compensate for this significant disadvantage" what is curious about the statement of the 45 degree arc statement is that the picture of the tank at Tarawa clearly has its turret rotated toward the left rear quadrant of the tank- clearly more than the 45 degree forward arc stated in the sentence.--214.27.124.46 15:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[1] 214.27.124.46 (talk)

But the tank in that photo has been knocked out. Possibly the turret has been forced around by an impact? Yorkist (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

America's first clash of armor in WWII

[edit]

The first paragraph of this section is a little odd. It goes into lots of technical detail about the armour of both side's tanks, then gives no details of the result of the clash. The final sentence, unreferenced, then seems to imply it was a Japanese victory.Yorkist (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this section is mostly copied from 192nd_Tank_Battalion#America.27s_first_clash_of_armor, so I've clarified it from there. Yorkist (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gen. Georgy Zhukov and Joseph Stalin Discuss Burning Russian Tanks at Nomonhan

[edit]

Although the Spanish Civil War of 1936 was the first major clash of armor since WWI, the opposing forces consisted largely of obsolete WWI era cannon armed and machine gun armed tanks against Russian supplied high velocity 45mm gunned tanks. Nomonhan, on the other hand, altough occuring later in 1939, consisted of history's first massive clash of strictly cannon armed tanks; IJA 37mm gun Type 95s against Soviet BT tanks which were equipped with high velocity 45s. It was this experience that resulted in the Soviets switching from gasoline powered tanks to diesel powered tanks. Specifically, the Russian T-34, whiched entered the field shortly after Nomonhan.

In final, the diesel and cannon armed tank (which, at the time was the Type 95) was the right combination for a main battle tank; and not a gasoline fueled cannon armed tank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.21.110 (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese WWII units equipped with Type 95 Ha-Gō

[edit]

This sub-section has been marked uncited to an WP:RS source since August 2011. An inline note states it is WP:OR; "As can be seen in article's edit history, this list has been created by user Torb37 and not confirmed by any reliable source." I checked and it was added by 2007 blocked editor Torb37, back in August 2006. So, it has been uncited for over ten years. It involves units equipped with Type 95 Ha-Gō. Does anyone have an RS source to check this section and cite it accordingly; if not, it should be removed. It has been hanging out there uncited, long enough. Kierzek (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait a few days before removing the section, if no improvement/RS citing is done. Kierzek (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing this section, per the above stated reasons. Kierzek (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Running ha go

[edit]

According to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=233&v=eMKYunM8B58

The Ha go currently at the tank museum is owned by someone in japan.©Geni (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also according to these pages there is a Ha-Go at the Defense Technology Museum, Gotemba in Japan:

©Geni (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty decent CC photo of it:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajw1970/49914281252/
©Geni (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Type 94 37mm

[edit]

Text says the gun is not the same as the Type 94 37mm AT gun, but how many different 37mm guns did the Japanese develop in 1934? I very much doubt they developed an entirely different gun for use in this tank alone. At least it is a mere designation change, more likely a variant of the Type 94. Variants section links to the page on the Type 94 AT gun when discussing the early shorter barrel variant, so I assume they took a Type 94 and lengthened the barrel to make it into a "Type 94 Tank Gun". Which begs he question, if it was designed "like most light tanks" to support infantry, why are they giving it a longer barrel than their standard AT gun? You do that to fight armor. Infantry support guns dont need muzzle velocity. Of course I find the idea that light tanks are meant to support infantry to be ridiculous. Light tanks are meant to be fast and mobile. Infantry tanks are meant to support infantry, and they are the exact opposite of light tanks. Why are light and cruiser tanks given little armor and small guns with no or useless explosive shells if they are for infantry support? An M3 Light tank went 35-40mph and had a main gun that only fired solid AP shot. What part of that is useful for supporting infantry? Light tanks are meant for rapid exploitation and scouting, flank attacks, etc.

Also, it tells us the armor is 'far inferior' to the M3 Light, but it doesnt tell how thick it actually is. Lighter than M3, that hardly seems possible. Is it only enough to stop standard rifle rounds, or what? 64.223.106.178 (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Under the combat history section, it says that the U.S. M3 had 1 1/4 inch armor and the 95 had 12mm thick armor. It would be helpful if editors would add standard measurements in brackets when using metric, and the opposite when applicable, so readers would not have to translate figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:75E0:3640:789D:25D1:D6A5:301C (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: "I find the idea that light tanks are meant to support infantry to be ridiculous." I'll try to explain the history behind those ideas for you. Using the U.S. Army as an example, to save time and space: From about 1776 (Revolutionary War) up thru the Vietnam War (officially ending in 1975), the U.S. Army, as most major armies in the world, consisted of three combat arms (this means those combat arms were supported by the transportation units, military police units, mechanics, medical corps, food service corps, finance corps, AVIATION people, etc.) Those three combat arms were infantry, (horse) cavalry, and (muzzle loading, later breech loading) artillery. The largest and easiest arm to create and field was the infantry because all a nation needed was to raise men and arm them. Horse cavalry was abit more difficult because horses eat like a horse, which makes them expensive, and they need horse shoes (made of metal) and tack (saddles and bridles, etc), then the cavalrymen needed to be trained as one (horse & man); all very expensive. For artillery, the nation needed to have the industrial base to cast metal cannons (Guns). Very expensive and only civilized nations can do it. That leaves the "infantry" again. No nation needs to be modern nor industrial to create an infantryman. As one army officer put it, an army (primarily infantry) is an armed mob ready to destroy anything and everything; which was why officers were established, to control them and get them to follow orders (accomplishing the mission). No cavalry or artillery was needed...just an armed mob. So up until the Vietnam War from the 1960 thru the 1970s, the infantry was the largest and most important branch of the army. The mission of artillery and armor (cavalry) was to support the infantry. After the Vietnam War, other army combat arms were created, so there was no longer just the traditional 3 combat arms (infantry, armor (cavalry), and artillery). By the 21st century, Army's became less traditional, less foot soldiering, more technical and computerized after Vietnam.

The U.S. didn't even have a permanent horse mounted squadron until 1833, when the U.S. 1st Dragoons were established by congress; and this was solely created to fight horse mounted American Indians (Red Men-these were 18th, 19th, and 20th century terms-the term Native American was also used but rarely during those centuries). In 1836 US Congress created the 2nd US Dragoons (Dragoons were mounted infantrymen, they were trained to fight both mounted and dismounted and were armed with Hall Carbines & saber, and sometimes a single shot flintlock or percussion cap pistol attached to the horses saddle-thus the term "horse pistol"). After the Mexican War 1846-1848, US soldiers began to carry pistols on their waist belts, rather than their horses. US Cavalry (Horse) was created in 1861 for the American Civil War (Officially the "war of rebellion" or "war between the states") thus the 1st US Dragoons were re-designated the 1st US Cavalry, the 2nd Dragoons the 2nd US Cav, etc. However Congress also added the 4th, 5th, etc. cavalry's at the same time in 1861. Even more were created after the Civil War.

Horse cavalry world wide went into battle up until 1942 (U.S. 26th Cav). U.S. Armor was officially established in 1940, and after suffering their final defeat in WWII in 1942, Congress officially deactivated the U.S. Horse Cavalry. During WWI, the U.S. Army Tank Service was established in December 1917, it lasted until May 1918. Then the U.S. Tank Service was re-named the U.S.Tank Corps from May 1918 and lasted until about 1921. From roughly 1921 there was no tank arm in the U.S. Army. Those tanks originally in the Tank Service and Tank Corps were distributed to the Infantry/Cav units. The army believed, as most armies, that infantry and horse cavalry reigned supreme in armies. As a result, any war machine (the tank) must support the main branch of the army-namely the INFANTRY. As a consequence of this "traditional" thinking, most tanks were built armed with machine guns, not cannons. The first post WWI German Panzers were armed with machine guns, even though the 20mm is called a cannon, in reality it's simply an over-grown .50 caliber machine gun. And yes, a .50 cal can fire exploding rounds, like a 20mm can. Even though tank to tank fighting occurred in WWI, the Germans only had about 20 home built tanks when they fought the British, the rest were captured Brit/French tanks. British female tanks were armed with machine guns, cannon armed tanks were called males. But their jobs were to support the infantry. America cared little for tanks and rather than invest time, money, and research into them, simply built license COPIES of British Mark Vs, and French Renault tanks, such as the famed Model 1917 Renault.

The very first tank fights in WWI may have been between mixed machine gun and cannon armed tanks. The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939 had one side armed with m.g. tanks and the other with Soviet supplied gun (cannon) armed Bt tanks. It was not until Nomonhan in 1939 that Soviet (Russian) BT 45mm gun tanks took on Japanese Type 95 37mm gun tanks. These were modern tanks both designed and built in the 1930s when Nomonhan took place. This is where General Zhukov learned about tanks, and would later apply those lessons against the Germans in WWII. From Georgy Zhukov's experience onward, people were looking hard at GUN (Cannon) armed tanks. Gun armed tanks meant tank to tank fighting. So the change from supporting infantry was now transitioning to fighting other tanks; from 1939 onwards. The Type 95 was fielded in 1935, before tank to tank fighting would become predominate. The only true lesson learned by the Russian (Soviets) at Nomonhan was to switch to diesel fuel. The 95 used diesel! But they were both (BT/95) gun armed, the Russians (Soviets) took note of that too. The Japanese army wanted more modern tanks, but they had to compete with the Japanese Navy. Japan, like Great Britain, was an island empire, and warships always took priority with steel resources. It takes tons and tons of steel just to make one puny destroyer, more tons of steel to make a little bit larger warship called a cruiser. Then untold amounts of steel to construct a battleship. A tiny little 10 ton army tank will just have to wait its turn for raw material, then take whats left of the remaining steel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.154.245.62 (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t the Ha-Go see service in the 2nd Sino-Japanese war.

[edit]
Allied Panzer (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and the text of the article states that; see lead and combat history sections. Kierzek (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It did not say that in wars the Type 95 ha-go fought in. I saw Kahlon Gol and WW2 but not the Second Sine Japanese War. Might have been fixed if so sorry for wasting your time. Allied Panzer (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Kierzek (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History and Development

[edit]

The History and development section (specifically, its last sentence in the current version) mentions the Ha-Go tank as being produced, in addition to the prime contractor (Mitsubishi) by: "Niigata Tekkoshō, Dowa Jido Sho, Sagami Arsenal Kokura Rikugu Jiohei Sho and Ihesil". (1) This list is at variance with the Japanese page, which gives: 相模陸軍造兵廠 (Sagami Arsenal), 日立製作所 (Hitachi), 新潟鐵工所 (Niigata Tekkoshō), 神戸製鋼所 (Kobe Steel), 小倉陸軍造兵廠 (Kokura), など (and others). (It may be the case that, after 1945 Kobe Steel and Hitachi purchased some of the companies mentioned by the sources for the English page.) (2) "Ihesil" -- Can anyone guess what this is a typo for? No such company. Probably the only Japanese proper noun on Wikipedia that ends in the letter el. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the cited pages. It lists at the end as minor parts contributors, Ikegai Automobile Manufacturing Co. and Ihesil Automobile Co. in Hiro. But I could not find an "Ihesil" company in an internet search. I think it may be a misspelling in the English translation. Better just to list the major contributors. Kierzek (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Type_95_Ha-Go_light_tank&oldid=1248456362"