• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

The Ha-Go (and other tank discussion)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Extension7

Extension7

Grizzled Veteran
Jun 22, 2010
1,766
323
East Coast USA
www.createphpbb.com
#1
So at Prauge the RS team released some screen shots of that cute look ha-go ^_^

I thought the model looks pretty accurate, but just some questions on it:

Will it be able to use it's rear MG, if so, will their be a animation for turning around or something of the sort?

Also, how many maps do you plan to have your cutey tanks on? :3 And will there be a tank battle map too?

Also just a curious question as I am not sure the answer, how does the Ha-Go match up to the bulkier Stuart? I'm sure the Stuart must have been superior so is there going to be some sort of AT advantage for the Japs or are you just going to balance it out (if it is unbalanced in the first place)

Ask other tank questions too guys, RS hasn't been getting enough attention on the forums section lately :IS2:
 
#2
The Type 95 Ha-Go is one of my favorite tanks of all time. Don't ask me why, it just is. I do have some concerns about how its being matched up against the M3 light tank though.

The M3, as far as I can tell, was more maneuverable, its 37mm gun was of better performance, had literally triple the armor thickness, and had a coaxial gun (the Ha-Go does not, makes it harder to engage infantry when present in various Battlefield 1942 mods).

The Ha-Go is also vulnerable to heavy machine gun fire, while the M3 Stuart is not (or at least the Japanese didn't use a particularly high caliber automatic weapon like the M2 .50 cal).

It should be noted that Americas first tank engagement ever was between M3 Stuarts and Ha-Go tanks, and the Americans lost. That had more to do with tactics and training than the quality of the vehicles though.

IMO a fairer match would be the Type-97 Chi-Ha "Shinhoto" model (long barreled 47mm gun). Both had comparable armor, the Chi-Ha having a considerably better gun but was less agile. I understand that modeling tanks for this game is extremely time consuming and difficult though. I hope to see it in the future though, Because the Chi Ha is another one of my favorite tanks :)
 
Upvote 0
#3
Although the Ha-go IS a amazingly cute tank, I would rather have the Chi-Ha to face the M3's (as you said BlueCrab)

If you are going to be realistic about the tanks, you may want to reconsider or maybe give some advantage to the Ha-Go?

I don't know how this sort of stuff worked out in WW2 but it just seems a bit unbalanced.

Then again, it all depends on the skill, and efficiency of the crew, how fast they could load, how well they know their own land, etc.

Can someone please correct my theory? :)
 
Upvote 0
#4
Extremity said:
Although the Ha-go IS a amazingly cute tank, I would rather have the Chi-Ha to face the M3's (as you said BlueCrab)

If you are going to be realistic about the tanks, you may want to reconsider or maybe give some advantage to the Ha-Go?

I don't know how this sort of stuff worked out in WW2 but it just seems a bit unbalanced.

Then again, it all depends on the skill, and efficiency of the crew, how fast they could load, how well they know their own land, etc.

Can someone please correct my theory? :)
Click to expand...

would more/better placed Ha-Gos be a possible balance, without mangling the realism?
 
Upvote 0
#6
Nice try, Nestor, you're not fooling anybody.

I think the Ha-Go will mostly be there against infantry, say on an early war map where the U.S. was at a disadvantage, or if they're against M3's, they will have defensive positions and other tactical advantages. I don't think the RS team needs a new tank if that was all they had, although I would agree the Chi-Ha would be good against M3's (balance-wise) from what I know for the tank on tank battles...

...which we will have.
 
Upvote 0
#10
Well there is this reasoning
"based upon the Army's Ballistics Research Lab (BRL) which conducted the first large study of tank vs tank warfare in 1945, the conclusion was that the single most important factor in a tank duel was which side saw first, shot first, and hit first.On 22 December 1941, the Type 95's of the 4th Tank Regiment had done just that."

So first see, First Shoot = Winner.

But also to be fair, I believe the U.S Armies Tank Division in that encounter was out numbered 3 to 1

Also, I noticed peleliu mentioned on the poster graphic, and from what I've read only the Type 95 of the 14th Division was available to the Japanese on that Island.
Also If you are going to model a Tank that was used on most of the Islands in the Campaign then it will be the Type 95.

Maybe one of the avantages that could be considered in Map design, is tank trenches. The Japanese used to "Entrench" their Tanks with only the Turret above ground at certain strategic positions and form Tank traps
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hypno Toad and Landrik
Upvote 0
#13
Nestor Makhno said:
Nobody has said there will be tank vs tank battles.
Click to expand...

While there are no strictly tank vs tank battles (makes sense) is it going too far to say that there may be maps where American tanks may engage Japanese tanks (in small numbers, of course)

If there's some combined arms maps, I dont think that the map would necessarily need to be balanced for tanks if they are there to provide an infantry support role. Given the circumstances in any given map, you dont necessarily need to encourage the tanks to shoot at each other. As long as the Japanese have a slight tactical advantage on the map, the tanks alone dont need to be evenly matched.

The Type 95 was a terrible, terrible tank, and it was even more rare to encounter anything bigger.
 
Upvote 0
#14
Type 95 wasn't terrible, as much as... misused. It was intended to fight against infantry and at best old Chinese tankettes borrowed from Russia (that last one I'm guessing). The Japanese simply didn't bother developping a competitive tank or even a tank destroyer until late in the war, and the Chi-To's and Chi-Ri's weren't available until it was time to defend the home islands, a battle which never took place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Welshie
Upvote 0
#15
Clowndoe said:
Type 95 wasn't terrible, as much as... misused. It was intended to fight against infantry and at best old Chinese tankettes borrowed from Russia (that last one I'm guessing). The Japanese simply didn't bother developping a competitive tank or even a tank destroyer until late in the war, and the Chi-To's and Chi-Ri's weren't available until it was time to defend the home islands, a battle which never took place.
Click to expand...

Eh... By Japanese standards, the Type 95 was acceptable in the mid 30's because given their minimal metal resource situation, it was the best they could do; and that was pretty good because the Chinese couldn't do very well either. That said, compared to general tank standards as a whole in terms of quality and performance, the type 95 was a bloody terrible tank, no exceptions. The Japanese needed to devote most of their minimal metal resources to building ships later on, and even by 1930's standards of everybody else the Type 95 Ha-Go was a poorly armed and armored tank.

You'd think given their resource situation, they may have been more inclined to try and make innovations, such as heavily sloped armor to increase effective armor thickness or a low profile to increase shot deflection, but the Type 95 doesn't really have either of those things and the Japanese never really made a significant effort to copy the soviet style.

With only 12mm of armor and a fairly flat armor profile a Browning M1919 would be able to perforate it with sustained fire. When you've got an infantry support tank that is significantly vulnerable to small arms fire, you know you've done something wrong somewhere.

As far as Japanese WW2 tanks go, it's "too little, too late." The point is moot anyways, as the M3/M5 Stuart is vastly superior (not to mention the Sherman) and any model of Type 95 pales by comparison. I dont think there should be an "effort" to balance anything, the Japanese tanks were inferior and were in smaller numbers. Since the Type 95 is an infantry support tank, and so is the Stuart, hopefully they are both encouraged to play that role in map design... that said, I dont think that the RS team should try and avoid tank combat altogether, I look forward to trying to evade and hunt down Stuarts with my crappy Type 95 :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Welshie
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu