Page 1 of 2

Name This AE...303

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:50 pm
by Brady
???








Image








RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:55 pm
by Mark VII
Brit patrol passing some Jap outhouses.

RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:00 pm
by Hornblower
Oz troops during the battle of Milne Bay

RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:14 pm
by Nikademus
Type 95 HA GO?

RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:16 pm
by Anthropoid
Wow those Te-Ke's are tough aren't they!?

RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:19 pm
by Nikademus
They'll still in one piece..... [:D]

RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:32 pm
by Hornblower
IIRC the Japanese tanks got bogged down before they could be knocked out, but after they broke the AIF Bat. on the 1st day/night of the battle

RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:53 pm
by Nikademus
yup. Bergerud (Touched by Fire) says the two tanks were instrumental along with Japanese night attacks in defeating the Oz Bn (1st/10). He does not ID the tanks though. so i'm left with my guess. [:D]

RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:33 am
by DivePac88
Yes, Light Tank Type 95, HA-GO. Normally equipped the organic tank companies/platoons of the Infantry divisions, and the Individual brigades. Also yes at Milne Bay after the Japanese landing there.

RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:31 am
by TOMLABEL
Seriously...can you really classify those....those.....those... things as 'tanks'? [:D]

TOMLABEL

RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:57 am
by Terminus
Sure you can... Same way you can classify an IJA rifle as an effective firearm. It helps if you get drunk and squint first...

RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:16 am
by String
ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

Seriously...can you really classify those....those.....those... things as 'tanks'? [:D]

TOMLABEL

I invite you to go after them with rifles and machineguns and still laugh at them [;)]

RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:44 am
by m10bob
ORIGINAL: Terminus

Sure you can... Same way you can classify an IJA rifle as an effective firearm. It helps if you get drunk and squint first...


Dad raised my brother and I on weapons from that war, (and earlier), but nothing, NOTHING, beats a Chaut Chaut, and yes, I have.

RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:50 am
by Terminus
I think the IJA should have been issued a major fine for littering there...

RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 am
by HMAS Sydney
At Milne Bay the Japanese tanks apparently ran out of ammo pretty quickly but hard charges or something for the shells still on hand and killed a number of Australians with the muzzle blasts.  The Australians also found out the the lights on the tanks were reflected from mirrors to protect them from bullets, etc. 

RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:03 am
by juliet7bravo
"IJA rifle as an effective firearm"
 
Arguably one of the best bolt guns of WW2.  Own several of them myself.  I personally think the SMLE was the best bolt gun, but that's just my opinion, and I've actually carried one of the jungle carbine versions patrolling.
 
7.7mm was a decent round, the 6.5mm had low recoil and smokeless powder...great for jungle warfare.  Earlier on, Allied troops often carried the carbine models by choice as they had nothing better for the purpose.  Japan the first to introduce chrome bores.  Pre and early/mid-war production weapons very well made.  Reportedly the strongest action of the Mauser based guns.  IIRC, Weatherby(?) used early production Japanese actions postwar by preference to make their custom magnum weapons, in fact.
 
IJA tanks, if effectively supported by infantry, would be exactly what an infantry support tank should be...an armored, mobile, weapons support platform.  One with lousy armor and lousy guns, but that's still better than being on the receiving end, bare nekkid with no anti-armor weapons.  As someone (correctly) pointed out earlier, they were decent tanks by 1930's standards.  Possibly even better than decent.  World moved on, rapidly, the IJA didn't.  Unsupported, they weren't much good.  Backed by IJA infantry, used properly IAW IJA doctrine...useful.  Still couldn't have paid me money to fight in one of the POS...

RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:08 pm
by mlees
Mk1 (Mod b) Bolo.

RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:20 pm
by Nikademus
ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

IJA tanks, if effectively supported by infantry, would be exactly what an infantry support tank should be...an armored, mobile, weapons support platform.  One with lousy armor and lousy guns, but that's still better than being on the receiving end, bare nekkid with no anti-armor weapons.  As someone (correctly) pointed out earlier, they were decent tanks by 1930's standards.  Possibly even better than decent.  World moved on, rapidly, the IJA didn't.  Unsupported, they weren't much good.  Backed by IJA infantry, used properly IAW IJA doctrine...useful.  Still couldn't have paid me money to fight in one of the POS...

agreed. Bergerud stated their participation was critical in the defeat of the 1st BN. Other later war Allied tanks may have outclassed the Type 95 but that becomes irrelevent when they aint there to oppose them. Just ask the Chinese.

RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:23 pm
by Brady
 Type 95 HA GO, it is[:)]

Milne Bay, it is[:)]

Austrailian Troops, it is[:)]

It is, Thompson M1928A1

...................

From Taki's Sight:

Type 95 Light Tank "Ha-Go"

Introduced Year : 1934
Weight : 6.7 ton
Dimensions: 4.3 x 2.07 x 2.28(h) m
Armor (max) : 12 mm
Speed (max) : 40 km/hr
Engine : Diesel Engine 120 PS/1800 rpm
Armaments : Type 94 37 mm or Type 98 37mm (Late Model) x 1, Type 97 7.7 mm x 2
Crew : 3
Production Qty : 2,375

Good speed and high reliability tank, but its armor is very weak and its gun is also poor. Ha-Go was produced in the most numbers of Japanese AFVs. Widely used until the end of WWII.

RE: Name This AE...303

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:59 pm
by juliet7bravo
Have to wonder why the IJA didn't build assault guns ala the Stug, or more SPGs.  Would have "fit" with their mindset and doctrine, and been cheap conversions.  A tankette hull mounting one of their little 70mm infantry support guns and an MG would have been useful.  Ditto a HA GO with a 75mm pack howitzer.  Stug type assault gun built on a HA GO chassis with a high velocity 47mm, very, very useful.