why the production type 4 Chi-to was so different from the prototype? What was considered when the project start?

Discussions on all aspects of the Japanese Empire, from the capture of Taiwan until the end of the Second World War.
aurelien wolff
Member
Posts: 368
Joined: 12 Aug 2018 00:31
Location: france,alsace

why the production type 4 Chi-to was so different from the prototype? What was considered when the project start?

Post by aurelien wolff » 30 Mar 2019 09:42


User avatar
Akira Takizawa
Member
Posts: 3372
Joined: 26 Feb 2006 17:37
Location: Japan

Re: why the production type 4 Chi-to was so different from the prototype? What was considered when the project start?

Post by Akira Takizawa » 30 Mar 2019 10:53

> why the production type 4 Chi-to was so different from the prototype?

The turret of prototype was the casting. But, it was difficult to produce in Japan. So, it was abandoned and the turret was converted from that of Chi-Nu. The chassis was also refined to improve the protection and productivity. As a result, it became quite different tank.

> What was considered when the project start?

Chi-To started as the successor to Chi-He. Its weight was 20 ton and its main gun was Type 1 47 mm gun or long 57 mm gun. In 1943, main gun was changed to long 75mm gun. But, the first prototype mounted long 57mm gun. Its turret was different from that of the second prototype which mounted 75mm gun.

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

aurelien wolff
Member
Posts: 368
Joined: 12 Aug 2018 00:31
Location: france,alsace

Re: why the production type 4 Chi-to was so different from the prototype? What was considered when the project start?

Post by aurelien wolff » 30 Mar 2019 11:06

Akira Takizawa wrote:
30 Mar 2019 10:53
> why the production type 4 Chi-to was so different from the prototype?

The turret of prototype was the casting. But, it was difficult to produce in Japan. So, it was abandoned and the turret was converted from that of Chi-Nu. The chassis was also refined to improve the protection and productivity. As a result, it became quite different tank.

> What was considered when the project start?

Chi-To started as the successor to Chi-He. Its weight was 20 ton and its main gun was Type 1 47 mm gun or long 57 mm gun. In 1943, main gun was changed to long 75mm gun. But, the first prototype mounted long 57mm gun. Its turret was different from that of the second prototype which mounted 75mm gun.

Taki

thanks for your answer,so from what I understand the turret of the prototype was one ideo for the production one but got abandonned because it was difficult to prudce,am I right or not? and is that model accurate or not for you? https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10183243/60/3

User avatar
Akira Takizawa
Member
Posts: 3372
Joined: 26 Feb 2006 17:37
Location: Japan

Re: why the production type 4 Chi-to was so different from the prototype? What was considered when the project start?

Post by Akira Takizawa » 30 Mar 2019 11:59

> so from what I understand the turret of the prototype was one ideo for the production one but got abandonned because it was difficult to prudce,am I right or not?

You are right.

> and is that model accurate or not for you?

It is accurate.

Taki

aurelien wolff
Member
Posts: 368
Joined: 12 Aug 2018 00:31
Location: france,alsace

Re: why the production type 4 Chi-to was so different from the prototype? What was considered when the project start?

Post by aurelien wolff » 30 Mar 2019 12:15

and what about the hull? Why the prottype hull is different from the production one(particulary the rear)?
https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10183240/60/2

User avatar
Akira Takizawa
Member
Posts: 3372
Joined: 26 Feb 2006 17:37
Location: Japan

Re: why the production type 4 Chi-to was so different from the prototype? What was considered when the project start?

Post by Akira Takizawa » 30 Mar 2019 12:18

The hull was refined to improve the protection and productivity.

Taki

aurelien wolff
Member
Posts: 368
Joined: 12 Aug 2018 00:31
Location: france,alsace

Re: why the production type 4 Chi-to was so different from the prototype? What was considered when the project start?

Post by aurelien wolff » 30 Mar 2019 19:01

Akira Takizawa wrote:
30 Mar 2019 12:18
The hull was refined to improve the protection and productivity.

Taki
thanks for your answer so if the hull wasn't refined,this would be the one that should've been put in production?

User avatar
Akira Takizawa
Member
Posts: 3372
Joined: 26 Feb 2006 17:37
Location: Japan

Re: why the production type 4 Chi-to was so different from the prototype? What was considered when the project start?

Post by Akira Takizawa » 31 Mar 2019 02:13

I don't comment about IF story. The fact is that it was refined and put into production.

Taki

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10162
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: why the production type 4 Chi-to was so different from the prototype? What was considered when the project start?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 02 Apr 2019 06:58

Did the USA test it after WWII? If so, what were their conclusions?

I have fond memories of it because I got a couple of cheap 1/72 scale models of it in the late 1960s in Malaya and was the envy of my Airfix-retricted friends back in the UK!

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Akira Takizawa
Member
Posts: 3372
Joined: 26 Feb 2006 17:37
Location: Japan

Re: why the production type 4 Chi-to was so different from the prototype? What was considered when the project start?

Post by Akira Takizawa » 02 Apr 2019 07:45

> Did the USA test it after WWII?

Yes

> If so, what were their conclusions?

They rated it highly next to Chi-Ri which was the highest.

Taki

User avatar
BayonetOnAZero
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: 09 Oct 2023 21:23
Location: USA

Re: why the production type 4 Chi-to was so different from the prototype? What was considered when the project start?

Post by BayonetOnAZero » 11 Oct 2023 21:37

Akira Takizawa wrote:
30 Mar 2019 10:53
> why the production type 4 Chi-to was so different from the prototype?

The turret of prototype was the casting. But, it was difficult to produce in Japan. So, it was abandoned and the turret was converted from that of Chi-Nu. The chassis was also refined to improve the protection and productivity. As a result, it became quite different tank.

> What was considered when the project start?

Chi-To started as the successor to Chi-He. Its weight was 20 ton and its main gun was Type 1 47 mm gun or long 57 mm gun. In 1943, main gun was changed to long 75mm gun. But, the first prototype mounted long 57mm gun. Its turret was different from that of the second prototype which mounted 75mm gun.

Taki
The Chi-To prototype looks very similar to the Chi-Ri… At least the turret does. It also has a quite bulky hull as well.
What has happened has happened, history is history. We must accept and embrace the things that we are passionate about and the atrocities that had been committed. Denying history is an atrocity in itself.

User avatar
Akira Takizawa
Member
Posts: 3372
Joined: 26 Feb 2006 17:37
Location: Japan

Re: why the production type 4 Chi-to was so different from the prototype? What was considered when the project start?

Post by Akira Takizawa » 12 Oct 2023 04:56

The turret of Chi-To prototype is not similar to that of Chi-Ri. The turret of Chi-To prototype is round because it was made by casting. The turret of Chi-Ri is angular because it was made by welding.

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

User avatar
BayonetOnAZero
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: 09 Oct 2023 21:23
Location: USA

Re: why the production type 4 Chi-to was so different from the prototype? What was considered when the project start?

Post by BayonetOnAZero » 24 Oct 2023 18:30

Akira Takizawa wrote:
12 Oct 2023 04:56
The turret of Chi-To prototype is not similar to that of Chi-Ri. The turret of Chi-To prototype is round because it was made by casting. The turret of Chi-Ri is angular because it was made by welding.

Taki
From a side view they have a very similar turret. Ignoring the rounded angles.
What has happened has happened, history is history. We must accept and embrace the things that we are passionate about and the atrocities that had been committed. Denying history is an atrocity in itself.

Return to “Japan at War 1895-1945”