06-03-2016, 06:20 AM | #31 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
Quote:
Of course if they were using anti-aircraft HE shells rather than some flavor of AP, you should expect them to have terrible results even against downright terrible tanks.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
06-03-2016, 06:53 AM | #32 |
Join Date: May 2016
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
My wikipedia searches came back empty so I must ask--what sort of tank DR would a Japanese tank have in the Burmese campaign?
|
06-03-2016, 07:21 AM | #33 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
Quote:
The Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank, which also served in Burma, had up to 28mm (DR 77).
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. Last edited by Ulzgoroth; 06-03-2016 at 07:27 AM. |
|
06-03-2016, 07:25 AM | #34 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
Quote:
This is the Type 97 medium tank, it and it's improved version below was their main tank of the war it weighed 15 tonnes, it had 57mm gun, and it it's armour is 9-28mm thick (gun mantlet reaching 50mm) the improved version had a better gun and armour range of 8-33mm Very roughly going with the Panzer 4s front armour of 280DR in HT, and the fact that its front armour was 3.1 inches thick that gives a DR per inch of 90*. Neither tank seems to have used sloping particularly, so assuming the metal the Japanese armour was made from was roughly as protective. I'd say at it thickest (presumably from the front) I'd say the earlier Type 97 is 100DR, and the improved version is 120DR all very back of envelope though. *so a bit better than RHA, and I think in line with the various steels mentioned in the armour articles in Pyramid for the TL Last edited by Tomsdad; 06-03-2016 at 07:29 AM. |
|
06-03-2016, 07:31 AM | #35 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
Quote:
|
|
06-03-2016, 07:33 AM | #36 |
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
From what I recall (possibly the side notes from Advanced Squad Leader) Japanese armour plate was also badly made from poor quality materials and riveted into place. Thus creating armour with a nasty tendency to shatter when hit, and even if it didn't, to eject shattered rivets.
Japanese tanks were well behind the curve in pretty much everything (they also struggled with the idea of a coaxial MG for some reason, fitting MG in pretty much any configuration but coax) - which was fortunate as it allowed us to send obsolete tanks to the Pacific theatre - a Matilda II or Stuart which would have been a death trap in Europe by 1945 was still a unholy terror to the Japanese. |
06-03-2016, 07:38 AM | #37 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
Quote:
|
|
06-03-2016, 07:43 AM | #38 |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
Yes. I do see that the Pz IV H seems to be statted with appreciably better-performing armor than that, but I'd have been surprised to hear that Japan had high-grade tank armor metallurgy. As The Colonel notes, there's not a lot good to be said for their tanks except that they were tanks with cannon, which was better than China or some of the poorly-equipped European garrisons could really pull off.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
06-03-2016, 07:46 AM | #39 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
Quote:
Last edited by Tomsdad; 06-03-2016 at 07:50 AM. |
|
06-03-2016, 07:50 AM | #40 |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
Interesting observation, though. If I try to stat more WWII armor at some point I'll need to think about how to factor it in.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
Tags |
40mm, aa gun, autocannon, spalling, wwii |
|
|