Performance Test of Japanese Light Tank Type 95

Japanese Light Tank Type 95 of taking mobility and the test of the turn of speed by the Allied Forces on March 5, 1944.
Finally there is a speed race with the M3 Tank. The result?

1944年3月5日連合軍により機動力と走行性能のテストを受ける日本軍の九五式軽戦車。最後にはM3戦車とのスピードレースがあります。その結果は・・・?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Japanese
• LightTank
• Type95
• 九五式軽戦車
• M3戦車
• PerformanceTest
• 性能試験
• Ducumentary
• ドキュメンタリー

[8000jk]

this tank was very effective in china and probably in difficult terrains but the japanese didnt expect to fight tank battles because they were on pacific islands with difficult dense jungle terrain by that time during the war it was quite obsolete but a reliable tank in 1935 in china

[lehtorja]

@88pie88 T-27 was equipped with one machine gun and weighed less than three tons - hardly a match to Ha-Go. BA-10 appeared in 1938. BT-7 is a contemporary of Ha-Go. More mobile, no doubt, and with a somewhat larger calibre gun. It was not a light tank, though, like Ha-Go. Doesn't change the point: when it appeared in 1935, Ha-Go was not an irrelevant light tank. See what the US or German armies possessed at the time, or the British - nothing very impressive, and in very limited numbers.

[MrBuddydan]

@PMCoils Yes the Japanese Navy was a creation of the British admiralty.

[MrBuddydan]

The Soviet copy of the British 6 ton,the T-26 is better and more reliable,if you raise the bar with theT-26e with 50mm frontal plate it would be more than enough to crush a japaneses armoured formation...alas the T-34/76 andT-34/85 made sure there was no chance.

[PMCoils]

There are a number of recorded instances where the crap Jap tanks were totally knocked out just by a .50cal machine gun. Very little of Jap materiel was any good. Except for their basic rifle, almost all of their small arms needed oil to feed the bullets effectively. Oil + dust = constant jams. Dumb. The didnt field an automatic rifle or even a submachine gun! Until 1944, all their aircraft had no protected fuel tanks or armoured seats! The only good thing they had was their navy.

[robvanmol]

@tutnallman yeah, i believe its the sound track of the captured jagdtiger if i can remember corectly

[SMGJohn]

@8000jk All their tanks that fought against allied armor was from 1930s. However, they fielded newer models from 1940 which proven superior to Allied armor.

[tutnallman]

what an awful add on sound track!

[CrimeAvenger2]

For a long time, the enemy of the Japanese army was a hill bandit in China.

Therefore, the Japanese army had neglected development of a Tank.

[redreaper2020]

@lehtorja considering my grandfather fought in Saipan, I'm pretty sure criticizing their flimsy tanks isn't criticizing veterans. That's offensive.

They "threw out" a very weak garrison force by flanking, tactics, and materiel numbers. China was torn apart already by civil war and was in even worse shape--it had virtually no armor or modern military force.  The Japanese won by tactics and by air-naval superiority; it was a naval empire.

And I drive bulldozers with thicker steel. Literally.

[lehtorja]

@redreaper2020 - For idiots equipped with tractors the Japanese did quite well in the early war, conquering half of China and then throwing Brits and Americans out of South-East Asia and half of Pacific with the help of these "tractors". If you think that was a "policing operation" and not combat you are insulting every war veteran of those wars.

[redreaper2020]

@lehtorja america didn't, but the brits used its suspension, and the (very similar) horstmann, as did the Russians with the T-34/34-85/BT2/5/7.

As for the Japanese being idiots...well, they were.  They couldn't use armor properly, and if you recall, in the 20s and 30s some very stupid ideas were around (tankettes, A1E1, etc). A slow moving vehicle vulnerable to rifles is only good as a tractor. 3/16in, shown at 6:29, isn't enough to withstand rifle fire.

It was good for policing, not combat.