Italian vs. Japanese WW2 Tanks

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

So, let's play a game.

This is a rough guide to what we are looking at here and is not to be taken as anything except a very superficial look at these vehicles and their capabilities. According to my book on world tanks, the Type 95 Ha Go was speedy and reliable, one of the best tanks the Japanese used during the war, powered by a reliable Mitsubishi 6-cylinder 120 hp diesel engine. The disadvantage of the tank was its three man crew, with the machine gunner sat next to the driver in the hull, and the commander in the turret also responsible for loading the main gun. Armed with a 37mm main gun and a 6.5 mm machine gun and protected by 12mm maximum and 6 mm minimum armour plating, the Ha Go wasn't powerful, but compares favourably to other light tanks of the day, with a road speed of 28 mph. A later variant received the same armament as the Chi Ha, upgunning the design with a 57 mm gun.

44270781231_132fbd67f9_b.jpg
Type 95

One Italian tank in service at the beginning of the war was the Carro Velocce CV.33, which was based on the British Carden Lloyd Mk.VI tankette, but was obsolete by the war, having entered service in 1931, but still in use in North Africa. British tanks were easily able to overwhelm this type owing to its light armour and armament of machine gun calibre weapons. Its armament comprised twin 8mm machine guns, with 15 mm maximum and 5 mm minimum armour plating, with a road speed of 26 mph. One disadvantage to this tank is that it doesn't have a moveable turret, but being a tankette was manoeuvrable. It had a crew of two. This is a Carro Velocce Fiamme flamethrower variant, captured in North Africa.

51735189309_89366bbfe0_b.jpg
DSC_0196

The Carro Armato L.6/540 replaced the CV.33 in service and although more modern, it was barely more capable against British armour, again, owing to its 20mm main armament and 30mm maximum and 6 mm armour plating. It could manage 26 mph on the road as standard for this size tank. A later version, the Semovente had a 47 mm anti tank gun mounted in the hull. As with the CV.33 it had a crew of two, so the loader also acted as commander, also firing the machine gun, which was mounted in the turret in the main armament mounting. The Semovente had a crew of three, which was an improvement but the type's speed went down owing to the extra weight of the gun and space inside the cab was restricted by the armament.

So, on the face of it, the Ha Go has the most powerful armament, with a 37 mm gun and is reliable and the fastest of the three vehicles here, and when fitted with the 57 mm gun is more than a match for the Italian tanks here, although the 47 mm gun of the Semovente could be effective against the standard armed Japanese tank. Ultimately, Japanese efficiency and discipline would trump Italian manoeuvrability; my money would be on the Ha Go to win.
 
I beleive the Vickers 6 Ton, and some old French FT-17s.

Yup, the good ole FT-17 was the very first mass produced tank and first to be built under licence, the Russians building them, and they were still prevalent within the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War, although they probably did accompany the armies ploughing through Eastern Europe on the way to Berlin. The Manchukuo army had them as well as the Kuomintang, although the type was long obsolete by the end of WW2. Great little tank though, the trendsetter that gave birth to the modern tank.

49252936992_6cd25d5c25_b.jpg
Royal Museum 11
 
Last edited:
Yup, the good ole FT-17 was the very first mass produced tank and first to be built under licence, the Russians building them, and they were still prevalent within the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War, although they probably did accompany the armies ploughing through Eastern Europe on the way to Berlin. The Manchukuo army had them as well as the Kuomintang, although the type was long obsolete by the end of WW2. Great little tank though, the trendsetter that gave birth to the modern tank.

View attachment 650921Royal Museum 11
Was it the Russians or the U.S., with it's M1917 tank?
 
Was it the Russians or the U.S., with it's M1917 tank?

What, production wise? I think the Americans built them under licence first, Dave, although the Imperial Russians received them before any foreign country, which were then absorbed into the Bolshevik army. I think at least...
 
Now the thought of an Italian v Japanese "tank" fight. Now that's a idea. Two paper mache toys running around trying to see how can plow a straight furrow. Yeah sorry not much of a fan of either "tank" concept. Though each was effective until a true tank arrived to take it on.
 
What, production wise? I think the Americans built them under licence first, Dave, although the Imperial Russians received them before any foreign country, which were then absorbed into the Bolshevik army. I think at least...
This is an interesting subject, to be honest.
The US Army used French FT-17s during the war and started manufacturing the M1917 in 1918, though the first production units arrived in Europe about a week after the war ended.

Any idea of the Russian's timeline?
 
Yup, the good ole FT-17 was the very first mass produced tank and first to be built under licence, the Russians building them, and they were still prevalent within the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War, although they probably did accompany the armies ploughing through Eastern Europe on the way to Berlin. The Manchukuo army had them as well as the Kuomintang, although the type was long obsolete by the end of WW2. Great little tank though, the trendsetter that gave birth to the modern tank.

View attachment 650921Royal Museum 11
Note the use of wood for the large front idler wheel. Worked quite well too.
 
Any idea of the Russian's timeline?

For construction, gonna have to look it up. I do know that the US factory had only just begun producing the M1917 and only a few (can't remember off the top of my head) reached France before the war's end. The Russians had received the tank before the revolution, or so I remember... The French used the type in action and it proved worthy, tactically it laid the foundations for modern tank combat.
 
The white Russian army received Renaults to use against the red army during the Russian revolution. Fourteen were burnt out and captured - these were refurbished
at the Krasnoye Sormovo factory in1920 and then one copy was also made. In 1928 the first T-18 tank was made which was based on the FT-17.

The FT-17 was used by 27 countries besides France including Afghanistan where US troops found four intact in 2003.
 
Last I heard, there werw two FT-17 relics discivered in a scrapyard near Kabul.

They hadn't been used in decades and needed to be restored. The Afghan government gave them to the U.S., who shipped them to the Patton museum

In that same scrapyard, were several Hawker Hinds (if I remember right, 12 airframes and a pile of parts).
Those went to the UK and at least one as been restored and put on display so far (at Cosford, I believe?).
 
That could be where two went with one still in Afghanistan and one sent to Poland. Two more were found in Iraq with the original engines
and were sent to the US. There are around fifty still in reasonable condition.

The Afghan scrapyard is said to have one or more Hawker Harts and a lot of other equipment but there is the danger of mines just to
add a bit of spice to any recovery operations.
 
In fairness, though, what was the competition for the Japanese tanks before 1942? Was Thailand an armor power? Did the Indochinese have a Panzer Corp? Did the British have ANY armor in Malaya? Even a piddling little armored car with a LMG is pretty terrifying if all you've got is a Siamese Mauser. Even the Chinese didn't have anything like a tank corp, so anything offered by the Japanese wouldn't have much to slow it down.
Before the official start of WWII the Japanese used their tanks in China . All went well until they faced the Russians in 1939. Here is the wiki article On those battles
It notes that the Japanese increased their tank production from 500 to 1200 after these battles.
 
From what I read, early on the IJA tanks had the advantage of being there, since it was believed that they couldn't operate in the jungles of SE Asia/Pacific Islands. Sort of the same mistake the Allies made in May of 1940 in the Ardennes and almost repeated (and to a degree did repeat) about four in a half years later during the Battle of the Bulge. And early on in the theater, they did do well.

For the Italians, they had a lot of CV33 family tankettes, that were vulnerable to .55 Boys anti-tank rifles and .50 MGs, and several of the actual light and medium tanks weren't a ton better in that regard (granted, Japanese tanks that were encountered in numbers weren't much better). Not to mention that such items did tend to attract the attention of more serious anti-tank weapons.

But they did show the importance of having armor when your enemy had little to no AFVs in service in the area, or attacking with AFVs in areas believe to be inaccessible to them. And to be fair, as much as Germany gets props for the Panzer III and early IVs in 1940, a lot of that fighting was done with the Panzer I (little more than a tankette) and the Panzer II (upgunned Panzer I). Same later in the war, where the Panther, Tiger and King Tiger get a lot of attention, but the updated Panzer IVs held much of the line.
 
If you want me to be honest, I do think the IJA were better off than Italy. Japanese tanks were nothing special once the Allies gained the initiative, but most Italian tanks were CV 33 derivatives or Fiat L6/40s. The latter was a decent light tank for very early world War II, but became obsolescent if not obsolete pretty quickly. I wouldn't want to be an Italian tanker going up against most IJA tanks in 1942 with those odds, even considering attempts that the Italians did make at improving their tanks.

If Italy had more of their later tanks, it might be a pretty pitched battle.
 
One thing that the Italians actually did pretty well at (as well as the Germans and Americans) was making tank destroyers/SPGs. The Italian Semovente SPGs were pretty successful, especially relative to their actual tanks.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back