Some more vehicle-related questions

Discussions on all aspects of the Japanese Empire, from the capture of Taiwan until the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
tom!
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 15 Dec 2003 11:42
Location: Dorsten Germany

Some more vehicle-related questions

Post by tom! » 04 Jul 2013 11:58

Hi.

During latest researches I stumbled upon various newinformations. These lead to several further questions regarding japanese military vehicles. I will add them one after the other for clarity.

A) On the japanese Wikipedia websiteabout the Armoured Lumberjack Ho-K two predecessors based on the Type 97 Chi-Ha are mentioned. Are there any further data about these vehicles available?

Yours

tom! :wink:

User avatar
Akira Takizawa
Member
Posts: 3222
Joined: 26 Feb 2006 17:37
Location: Japan

Re: Some more vehicle-related questions

Post by Akira Takizawa » 04 Jul 2013 13:52

You misread. It is written as follows.

First Armoured Lumberjack Ho-K (prototype) was built by TGE (in 1941). Later, (2nd) Armoured Lumberjack Ho-K based on the Type 97 Chi-Ha was produced by Mitsubishi (in 1943).

2nd Ho-K by Mitsubishi is the production model. I upload the photo of first Ho-K below.

Taki
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7050
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Some more vehicle-related questions

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 04 Jul 2013 14:44

What was that thing supposed to do?

Chris

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3772
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Some more vehicle-related questions

Post by Takao » 04 Jul 2013 15:10

Knock down trees of course. It could be used to clear a path through a forest...IIRC some were sent to New Guinea to lend a hand in airfield construction

User avatar
tom!
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 15 Dec 2003 11:42
Location: Dorsten Germany

Re: Some more vehicle-related questions

Post by tom! » 04 Jul 2013 17:02

Hi.

OK, thx. Nevertheless imo the well known Ho-K pictures shows a vehicle based on the Type 1 Chi-He, not the Chi-Ha

ImageImage
Long frontal mudguards, high engine compartment and no visible rivets

Or was it an independent development just using the same suspension?

Yours

tom! :wink:

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7050
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Some more vehicle-related questions

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 04 Jul 2013 18:31

Takao wrote:Knock down trees of course. It could be used to clear a path through a forest...IIRC some were sent to New Guinea to lend a hand in airfield construction
.

So you need an armored TANK, with a very marginal looking plow/ram to do that ? :lol:. How many bulldozers/tractors could you build for the economic cost of one of those things? Adding also the extra weight and cargo footprint to ship the thing to "NewGuinea" or where-ever . :idea:

Bad idea and simply looks dumb. A plain gun tank could do what that thing does, with the same risk of running gear/track damage, and still be a tank. A bulldozer would be far more effective and alot cheaper for tree clearance , and nobody clears/can clear an airfield under fire..

I have operated tanks and dozer tanks, I know their differences, and I can say that a real bulldozer or even a tractor with a blade is far more effective and cheaper. That thing ain't even a dozer tank. Looks like a battering ram for Medieval fort gates. Maybe it was really built to intimidate Chinese war-lords who still used such forts in WWII. IDK.

I smell boon-doogle/government+MIC/shenanigans :milwink: . An especially bad thing when the country paying for it, is losing a war.

User avatar
Akira Takizawa
Member
Posts: 3222
Joined: 26 Feb 2006 17:37
Location: Japan

Re: Some more vehicle-related questions

Post by Akira Takizawa » 05 Jul 2013 00:41

> OK, thx. Nevertheless imo the well known Ho-K pictures shows a vehicle based on the Type 1 Chi-He, not the Chi-Ha

You are right. Ho-K resembles rather Chi-He than Chi-Ha.

> Or was it an independent development just using the same suspension?

Ho-K was not converted from tank, but developed independently. So, it is not accurate that it is based on something. But, apparently it is common to Chi-He in many parts.

Taki

User avatar
Akira Takizawa
Member
Posts: 3222
Joined: 26 Feb 2006 17:37
Location: Japan

Re: Some more vehicle-related questions

Post by Akira Takizawa » 05 Jul 2013 00:54

ChristopherPerrien,

You are right. Bulldozer is more effective. But, in those days, there was no bulldozer in Japan. And IJA required some special specifications for military purpose like protection armor, navigation device etc. So, such a vehicle like that was developed.

Taki

User avatar
Wellgunde
Member
Posts: 1050
Joined: 24 Feb 2013 08:02
Location: Poway, CA, USA

Re: Some more vehicle-related questions

Post by Wellgunde » 05 Jul 2013 03:59

I was under the impression (perhaps mistaken) that Komatsu Ltd. had been producing some bull dozers since before the war.

Wellgunde
γνώθι σαυτόν

User avatar
Akira Takizawa
Member
Posts: 3222
Joined: 26 Feb 2006 17:37
Location: Japan

Re: Some more vehicle-related questions

Post by Akira Takizawa » 05 Jul 2013 05:09

Wellgunde wrote:I was under the impression (perhaps mistaken) that Komatsu Ltd. had been producing some bull dozers since before the war.
No. Komatsu first developed the bulldozer after the Pacific War began. In Dec. 1942, Komatsu was ordered bulldozers by the IJN. Japanese first bulldozer was completed by Kamatsu in Jan. 1943.

Taki

User avatar
tom!
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 15 Dec 2003 11:42
Location: Dorsten Germany

Re: Some more vehicle-related questions

Post by tom! » 05 Jul 2013 10:27

Hi.

This leads to my next question:

Which earthmovers were used by mechanised construction units? I don´t think Komatsu was the only company offering such machines. There is at least a picture of a Holt tracked dozer with the army star.

Yours

tom! :wink:

User avatar
Akira Takizawa
Member
Posts: 3222
Joined: 26 Feb 2006 17:37
Location: Japan

Re: Some more vehicle-related questions

Post by Akira Takizawa » 05 Jul 2013 13:24

Komatsu produced To-I, To-Ro and To-He bulldozers for IJA.
Kanebuchi produced 5t, 7.5t and 15t bulldozers for IJN.
Kubota produced 8t bulldozers for IJA.
Asano Bussan produced graders for IJN.
Kongo produced carryalls for IJN.

If you want to know the details, I recommend this magazine, though I know that you don't have enough budget.

http://www.passionmodels.jp/product/220

Taki

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7050
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Some more vehicle-related questions

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 05 Jul 2013 17:38

Akira Takizawa wrote:ChristopherPerrien,

You are right. Bulldozer is more effective. But, in those days, there was no bulldozer in Japan. And IJA required some special specifications for military purpose like protection armor, navigation device etc. So, such a vehicle like that was developed.

Taki

Thanks Taki. Now I am confused more :lol: : Because it is stuck in my brain from too many sources; US forces used Japanese "Bull-dozers", to finish Henderson Field on Guadalcanal in 1942 :D , :? :? :?. There are pictures of that Holt tractor; I just don't recall if it had a blade on the front, I think it did.

Japanese (rice + Ice plant +bull-dozers) + X = US victory Guadalcanal

Such is American History 101

Chris

User avatar
Akira Takizawa
Member
Posts: 3222
Joined: 26 Feb 2006 17:37
Location: Japan

Re: Some more vehicle-related questions

Post by Akira Takizawa » 06 Jul 2013 01:18

I think that it is only tractor. I upload a photo of Henderson Field.

Taki
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7050
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Some more vehicle-related questions

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 07 Jul 2013 01:44

Thank you again, Taki. Nice picture too 8-)

Now the question still remains why the Japanese could not fathom a "blade/box blade" on a Holt Tractor, even a manually operated blade, with no hydraulics .

I have my suspicions about my "battering-ram" idea to deal with Chinese War-Lords in Medieval forts; And how it makes more sense than this specialist vehicle being built to knock down trees. I need to dig through my books. The Japanese were very focused on China, and they did build alot of specialist weapons for that theater.
. And IJA required some special specifications for military purpose like protection armor, navigation device etc. So, such a vehicle like that was developed.
It would be nice to know to what purpose those "specifications" were for, as according to/stated by the IJA.

Chris

Return to “Japan at War 1895-1945”