They sent 2 battleships (Hood was a battlecruiser with a similar Armor scheme to a QE!), 2 Heavy Crusiers, and half a dozen DDs
Verses
1 Battleships and 1 heavy cruiser
Sir John Valentine Carden survives.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
- Status
Verses
1 Battleships and 1 heavy cruiser
In spite of its material superiority, what the RN did not have enough of was fast capital ships. They effectively had 4 available for immediate use (KGV,POW, Hood and Repulse) Repulse was the oldest and lightest, and so went with the more completely worked up KGV to cover the UK-Iceland Gap. Hood meanwhile was as fast as Repulse but much better armed and armoured and was backed up by the modern but still working up POW.
It was the best use that could be made of the assets at hand.
Last edited:
just imagining what a single Matilda II could do for the British in that situation. I'm guessing most of the Japanese tanks would end up perforated.
Maybe they could capture a few japanese tanks and give some to the Australians for studying.
The little one is Japanese (and keep in mind the Sherman isn't that wonderful in of itself) why give the Aussies crap tanks?
Maybe just to find out what it's strengths and weaknesses
The little one is Japanese (and keep in mind the Sherman isn't that wonderful in of itself) why give the Aussies crap tanks?
Japan's strength (like Britain's) was always its Navy, and in this TL Britain has the right tanks early on. I'd say Japan's odds are even lower this time.
Also even though the they were the second most industrial power in the axis, they just didn't have the resources and industrial capacity that the allies have.
When your second of three (and a few minor guys) that isn't a huge achievement. While Germany is very much a top five industrial power its taking on all the rest of the top 10 and eventually about 80% of the planet so its own relative strength didn't mean much as well. Sad thing is that they lasted so long and killed so many.
Doesn't help if it can't kill anything when it gets where its going though.
cut the top off and use them to haul firewood out of the forest.......forget that bren gun carriers are better.
That's a Type 94 Tankette, so you can't expect too much performance.
The little one is Japanese (and keep in mind the Sherman isn't that wonderful in of itself) why give the Aussies crap tanks?
marathag
Banned
Reliable, good mobility, enough weapons to deal with the Chinese, and enough armor for what passed for Chinese AT weapons.
So for what the IJA needed in the late '30, they met the requirements. They used diesel motors, and had some insulation so the tanks wouldn't be pure ovens.
In OTL, an early gift of an IJA tank could show it was possible to make a track that was reliable, something the British had real problems with thru 1942
Last edited:
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
On Japanese tanks.
The Japanese designed tanks to suit their operational requirements, and not those of the western powers. They also had the problem that Japan was short of much of the natural resources that were needed to produce the materials for tank production, and these had to be shared with the Navy. Even if they had been able to produce a 50 plus ton tank like the German Tiger, where could they have used it. Given the primitive infrastructure of the majority of the areas that they were going to be fighting in, they would have been lucky to get such a monster more than 10 miles away from the dock. Against a 3rd rate power China, the Japanese tanks were more than adequate, a real conflict winner. Against a 1st rate power the Soviet Union in tank county, Manchuria 1945, they weren’t even speed bumps, to what was a superb example of a Blitzkrieg operation. And it should always be remembered that a tank that was basically obsolete by European standards, the British Matilda II, was in Australian hands still better than anything it faced in the Far East. The 25 mm of armour on most Japanese tanks was totally inadequate against even the smallest tank/anti tank guns of the British, Americans or Soviet Union, and no better than wet cardboard, against the larger guns available by 1943.
RR.
The Japanese designed tanks to suit their operational requirements, and not those of the western powers. They also had the problem that Japan was short of much of the natural resources that were needed to produce the materials for tank production, and these had to be shared with the Navy. Even if they had been able to produce a 50 plus ton tank like the German Tiger, where could they have used it. Given the primitive infrastructure of the majority of the areas that they were going to be fighting in, they would have been lucky to get such a monster more than 10 miles away from the dock. Against a 3rd rate power China, the Japanese tanks were more than adequate, a real conflict winner. Against a 1st rate power the Soviet Union in tank county, Manchuria 1945, they weren’t even speed bumps, to what was a superb example of a Blitzkrieg operation. And it should always be remembered that a tank that was basically obsolete by European standards, the British Matilda II, was in Australian hands still better than anything it faced in the Far East. The 25 mm of armour on most Japanese tanks was totally inadequate against even the smallest tank/anti tank guns of the British, Americans or Soviet Union, and no better than wet cardboard, against the larger guns available by 1943.
RR.
That is true. Still, I think their experiences in Malaya will change Japanese tank doctrine and design. For starters, for medium tanks I would expect the design for the Type 1 to never get off the drawing-board, thanks to its anaemic gun (the same used in the Type 97, which will be running up against the British Matilda IIs). Or maybe they'd be rushed into service, because they're better than anything else the Japanese have on their books right now.
- Status