Could Japan have built licence panzer III, IV and Stug?

SCOUT 5249

From what I know Japan lacked the proper industries to turn out a good tank their primary medium type 97 was less than succesfull once fortune changed only at tail end did a good medium turn out.

But what if the Japanese had turned to Germany 1939 and 1941 and got the license to build their own panzer III and IV? Japan did create their own half track based on the SDK 251 examples given to them.

What difficulties would the Japanese have faced using the panzer III and IV properly?
Could they have built the stug?
Could the stug have done better?
How effective would they be against the allies?
How would it effect the Pacific war?
 
Last edited:

Gunnarnz

SCOUT 5249 said:
What difficulties would the Japanese have faced using the panzer III and IV properly?
Could they have built the stug?
How effective would they be against the allies?
How would it effect the Pacific war?
Click to expand...

In order...
  1. Manufacturing them, shipping them to where they were needed, keeping them supplied with fuel/ammo/parts, doctrine and tactics for using them. Japan struggled with all of those with the tanks they had IOTL, the German models won't be any better (and are likely worse in at least the first three aspects).
  2. Sure. Probably a better idea than the tanks, and easier to manufacture in sufficient quantities.
  3. Not very. The best tank in the world is useless without the right doctrine and tactics; Japanese armoured experience was largely based on fighting in China, which was poor preparation compared to the brutal lessons the Germans and Soviets could dish out. There's no reason to think changing to these types would allow the Japanese to have more tanks, ship them more easily, or maintain higher operational and supply rates, so it boils down to how they use them. Absent changes there, they won't be much more effective than the OTL types were. One noticeable difference might be a higher US priority for man-portable AT weapons; if the USMC is facing tougher armour they're going to want better can-openers.
  4. Probably not much. If they can be shipped, supplied, and used in the same quantities and ways as OTL Japanese armour, they'll have a greater effect, but this will be incremental rather than revolutionary. The Pacific war on the ground didn't often take place in terrain suitable for armoured warfare anyway, and once the US got rolling their preponderance of air and naval firepower made Japanese tanks mostly useful for local counterattacks and as somewhat-mobile pillboxes.
 

SCOUT 5249

QuentinEdwardDevrill said:
No diesel no way, IJA was fire risk obsessive after its Renault FT caugth fire in early 20's. They won't change manofacture and logistics chain
Click to expand...

They could simply just use the chassis and suspension with their own engines, like the KI 61 the engine factory was smashed so they fitted their own radial engine in place and it worked.
 

QuentinEdwardDevrill

It's not the same, could be easy to fit the engine in the chassis, not sure, but suspensión, tracks and drive wheel will not fit the new transmission. In the Ki61 if you get the engine working you only need to plug the propeller
 
Last edited:

Finbarr the Fair

SCOUT 5249 said:
They could simply just use the chassis and suspension with their own engines, like the KI 61 the engine factory was smashed so they fitted their own radial engine in place and it worked.
Click to expand...
Did Japan have a suitable diesel engine available, in the right power range, for this size of AFVs? H
 

Finbarr the Fair

SCOUT 5249 said:
Possible they did have aircraft engines and their own tanks. So yes they would have but again it's their priorities that make or cripple them.
Click to expand...
Well, an aircraft engine won't be a diesel, which seems to be the Japanese requirement. And while Japan did have its own tanks, AFAIK they were lighter than the German ones, especially the later models. So I think it's a legitimate question.

And, as you say, how much of their scarce resources, labour and plant can they devote to building better AFVs.
 

SCOUT 5249

Finbarr the Fair said:
Well, an aircraft engine won't be a diesel, which seems to be the Japanese requirement. And while Japan did have its own tanks, AFAIK they were lighter than the German ones, especially the later models. So I think it's a legitimate question.

And, as you say, how much of their scarce resources, labour and plant can they devote to building better AFVs.
Click to expand...

They did create the type 3 and type 4 medium tanks with HV 75mm, so yes the could make good tanks when it came down to it, the only problem was who got what in the priority list.
 

Garrison

Donor
SCOUT 5249 said:
They did create the type 3 and type 4 medium tanks with HV 75mm, so yes the could make good tanks when it came down to it, the only problem was who got what in the priority list.
Click to expand...
Well they could build medium tanks but since so few Type 3 and 4 were produced how exactly are you assessing that they were good?
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
Might they deploy the heavier German types to China, rather the SE Asia or Oceania? Better tank country in parts of Manchuria and Eastern China. Also, the Soviets are nearby with their large armored forces and by keeping all the German types together, you somewhat simplify the logistic issues.
 

SCOUT 5249

Garrison said:
Well they could build medium tanks but since so few Type 3 and 4 were produced how exactly are you assessing that they were good?
Click to expand...

The 3 and 4 could have more than a match for the Sherman with those 75mm the 4 was comparable to a panther, but performance wise given that they used bell crank suspension it give it 2-3/5

What I am pointing out Japan could build good tanks if they actually put effort rather than wait for the bowling ball to smash the glass then react

Driftless said:
Might they deploy the heavier German types to China, rather the SE Asia or Oceania? Better tank country in parts of Manchuria and Eastern China. Also, the Soviets are nearby with their large armored forces and by keeping all the German types together, you somewhat simplify the logistic issues.
Click to expand...

Could have worked but by the time the Soviets came rolling they were very seasoned.

The tanks would have slowed them only a little, then they would have flattened the army.
 
Last edited:

Bougnas

They did upgrade the overall design of the Type 97 Chi-Ha by going from riveted to welded armor in the Type 1 Chi-He and the 75mm gun the Chi-Nu used was based on an old field gun. It's certainly possible for Japan to develop tanks comparable to the Pz III/IV if the need was there but the problem was that by the time those new tanks could enter production, focus was on naval production which diverted most of the steel and I assume welding capability.

IMO, better tanks are on the bottom of the list when it comes to making Japan do better. The terrain simply wasn't suited for mass tank use and the Japanese were better off designing better lightweight AT weapons, either guns or man-portable weapons.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
I'd avoid the MkIII and derivative Stug as too difficult with the torsion bars, but to use a shortened Panzer IV hull and six suspension units rather than 8. This will keep the weight down, and they can use their aircooled Mitsubishi diesel and have an acceptable power to weight ratio
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
Bougnas said:
IMO, better tanks are on the bottom of the list when it comes to making Japan do better.
Click to expand...
Honestly though, there is nothing that Imperial Japan can do to stave off defeat, all they can do is make things more expensive in American lives.

Only chance they have, is not to do Pearl Harbor, but attack the British and Dutch, and ignore the Philippines, while they try to knock out China. Better tanks would be useful against the British, but they best thing they could get would be plans to do the MG42 in 7.7 IJN, and for the Army to use that .303 cartridge, so they can use captured British Ammo
 
David-Shiell

David-Shiell

One of Japan's biggest headaches was the almost toxic rivalry between Army and Navy. The two services couldn't agree on anything.

Japanese armor was perfectly adequate in the early war years, but they became progressively less so as the war continued. Most of their early war opponents either didn't have any armor, or were were equipped with light models in keeping with their expected role of colonial policing.
In 1945, British / Indian forces in Burma were using M3 Grants, which were considered suicidally inadequate everywhere else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top