Follow TV Tropes
IIRC Steven Zaloga's Armored Champion (or another one of his Osprey books) put it at around 600 litres, yeahp. Haven't found anything on the fuel capacity of Japanese tanks (there's a Type 95 at my local museum), but a Toyota Corolla holds 50 litres, for comparison.
Alright, then I am going to guess that my document misplaced the decimal and instead of 21.7 liters, the chi-ha had 217 liters, that seems like a much more belivable and pretty comparable (lighter tank with similar range) fuel capacity.
Edited by Imca on Oct 1st 2018 at 4:38:34 AM
The Chi-Ha operational range is over 200 km. I would say it is a safe bet there was a typo there. At 15 tons you won't get that far on so little fuel. That is .9 km per liter of fuel if it is holding 200+ liters. The twice as heavy Sherman is a pig for fuel by comparison.
Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Oct 1st 2018 at 7:20:56 AM
217 isn't too terribly unbelievable however when you consider all the other factors, .9km/l isn't a insane levels of efficiency, and as you said the Chi-Ha was half the weight, it was also slower... and ran on diesel instead of gasoline which AFAIK produces more torque and is more for producing torque and thus general heavy object cruise speed, at the cost of top end preformance (hence its use on trucks and the like).
Pair this with the fact that the IJA designed for fuel efficiency since the oil was strained as far back as China, all of this added together I can see how it might sip fuel compared to the M4, annnnd there is also the fact that it had 2 fuel tanks, and 108 is a number of religious/spiritual significance... and we all know how superstition can work its way into designs.
But it is most defiantly not 21.7... 9km/l is better most cars.
Edited by Imca on Oct 1st 2018 at 6:47:15 AM
The lower end for the M-4 variants is .3 km per liter. Damn thing is a fuel hog. Bet the Tiger I was like a stressed out parched alcoholic at a booze convention.
Years ago, Car & Driver magazine did a road test of a Sherman tank. (Why? Because they could.) This one was equipped with the standard Ford V8 gasoline engine. (1,100 cubic inches displacement, 450 horsepower.) Observed fuel economy was one mile per gallon.
I shudder to think what the mileage was for the Chrysler 30-cylinder variant (that's five six-cylinder engines all geared together.)
Edited by pwiegle on Oct 2nd 2018 at 8:49:36 AM
One Of These Big Cannon Toting Armored Vehicles May Replace The Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
General Dynamics Unveils Promising New Pint-sized "Franken-Tank".
Personally, we do need a weapon in the vein of a light tank meant to support infantry and/or tanks and a lighter means of providing rapid response, patrol or fire support but I would prefer something with an autocannon than a baby Abrams 120mm. I would say something in either 40mm or 57mm equipped with all the 3P ammo it could pack. Then strap on some missiles for anti-tank, bunker busting or Anti-Air for further capabilities.
Oh and make the light tank version exclusive for combat, don't build an APC or IFV to do an AFV's job. No troop carrying capacity for that one.
Honestly all we need to do is make a comfier BMP.
Which you think wouldn't be that tall of an order but look at the Bradley
Hey, that thermal blankie looks neat. Any reason for the preference for high-calibre autocannons? As far as I know, they're fairly specialised tools with some significant tradeoffs compared to traditional calibres.
^ Two big reasons:
1) Greater versatility. A 40 or 57mm can engage a wider variety of targets than traditional 20-30.
2) Greater range. Most 30mm and under weapons systems are pretty hard limited to 3000 meters or less in any role. A 57mm gun can engage at least up to 5,000 meters.
Larger caliber guns also have other trade-offs especially goosing it up to 120. Excessive footprints both from shells and firing but also require larger and heavier guns with fewer shots per vehicle. The bigger the gun the harder it gets to use in certain environments and situations. Like in urban combat. Those big shells tend to share the love and they have longer barrels.
3P Auto-cannons can hit everything short of a tank and even then the air burst shells could scrag any exterior mountings with fragments. Using the 40mm you can hit hard targets like bunkers and those little concrete towers the insurgents favor and even bad guys hiding up among rocks. 57mm is a bit large and I would argue on the upper end for practical auto-cannon sizes and calibers.
The US has already viewed the 40mm CTA tech rather favorably and we know the US likes the 3P type ammo as well.
IFV's need a different weapon set than a light tank. A light tank you can put a bit more gun on it because you don't leave spare room for passengers.
Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Oct 9th 2018 at 1:03:28 PM
That applique armor on the General Dynamics offering is pretty funky.
I agree that 40-50mm range is about the sweet spot for autocannons, and that there doesn't need to be troop carrying capabilities. We already have a lot of options for IF Vs, a dedicated light tank makes more sense.
Whats with the really funky hex pattern, it looks neat.
Immy: The new trend is finding ways to hide armored vehicles by doing things like hiding its IR signature, changes its shape, or reduce it. Also reducing how easily it would show up on radar. That semi-erratic pattern would help with the vehicles RCS.
The hex pattern is new.
I know the Russians had a number of armor packages for the T-90, T-80, and T-72 that had a bunch of rubber inserts and covers that absorbed radar.
Wouldn't quite call it stealthy but it was a marked improvement over having nothing at all.
Figured I would share this as well for any one else who is interested, blog is run by "Tank Mom" the lady who is probably one of the most well versed in WWII Japanese Armored vehicles there is, hired into places for her knowledge on the subject, and uncoverer of forgotten vehicles before so like, she is actually reputable.
Though that leads me to a question, namely, how the hell do whole tanks dissapear from history, only to resurface 75 years later.... Between these guys, and used boots from a heavy tank (that was then verified by British Intelligence even though every one else had forgot it existed)... its not a one time thing.
My money is documentation getting lost or not done, collectors and back door deals, and scavengers. Loss of paperwork was pretty common and from a organizations perspective, it vanishes. With more modern databases it is harder to do provided it exists on more than one database or in multiple physical and digital forms.
The rubber armor kits were NERA, not signature reduction. As far as I know the Russians were actually the first to use NERA to any real degree. The hex armor appears to be entirely for signature reduction with little to no added armor value. I have to wonder exactly how much it reduces the signature, but that's hardly something they'd publicize.
, Especially true for WW 2 era stuff, all-paper records can be lost or destroyed easily.
Edited by archonspeaks on Oct 10th 2018 at 6:55:05 AM
No there were rubber inserts beneath the armor plate that was important to their early NERA desgins as well. It caused early APFSDS to just shatter upon impact because the rubber didn't like to give in the same way thick steel did.
This was a different thing entirely and one of their later modifications.
Fair but like, it just seems strange to me that whole tanks go missing... they seem a bit you know big? To just up and vanish, even if the existing ones are destroyed, shouldn't there wrecks remain for a while?
I mean that is a way other ones are being found now, turning up in junk yards.... but I just think that would have happened sooner, not 75 years later... unless there is some specific reason all these guys would start showing up now?
Any way, on the topic of missing tank species? Do you guys like prototypes? Got some neat ones here.
Type 90 prototype featuring a different hull and turret shape◊
STB 3◊ I love how smoosh this guy looks.
and◊ another◊ pair of type 90 prototypes.
No real documentation exists on these guys since there still classified, but like they are verifiable to exist by just going to visit there sleeping spots, so like I thought they might also peak interest.
Being classified meaning limited paper trails could also cause experimental or unique designs to more easily go missing as fewer people know about them and the paper trails are more easily lost.
For the USSR when they collapsed a lot of info and equipment was misplaced. The same thing holds true for any ruling body caving in like that.
The NERA sections below the armor are pretty common on modern tanks these days. They donít necessarily shatter a penetrator, but they can throw them off course. They bulge when struck and that changes the path the penetrator takes through the armor.
Iím not sure about RAM panels, thereís RAM paint for those tanks which can go on top of extra NERA panels but the panels themselves are just armor.
Edited by archonspeaks on Oct 10th 2018 at 8:00:06 AM
It was only the early days ones that shattered. The rubber insert would reflect enough of the energy back into the projectile and break it.
They don't do that these days
I highly doubt NERA ever shattered APFSDS. Thatís simply not how it works. The projectile has already entered the armor when NERA takes effect, and its mechanism only changes the shape of the armor. Itís not powerful enough to break apart even a basic penetrator, though it will send it wildly off course in ideal conditions.
Garcon: I have to agree with Archon. That isn't how NERA works. It creates an armor bulge effectively creating a larger armor gap to cross. It is meant primarily for HEAT charges because of how the flow of a HEAT jet works.
Community Showcase More