The Last Samurai | Type 3 Chi-Nu of the Imperial Japanese Army

[@user-hb9ej4ow4j]

In the 1942 Philippine Campaign, Japanese Ha-Go's were able beat American armored forces equipped with the M3 Stuart. After the campaign the Americans concluded that despite having better tanks than the Japanese, the Japanese simply had more combat experience and training at that point. So more often the Japanese were more prepared and were able to fire the first shots against the American tanks to conclude the battles in their victory.

[@casioak1683]

M3 was a just light tank.. not a "better tank". M4 was the "better tank"

[@satriorama4118]

@@casioak1683 and you think ha-go is a proper tank? It's also a light tank.

[@casioak1683]

@@satriorama4118 LOL. Ha Go and Chi Ha were light tanks. M3 was not a "better tank", they were equal. M4 Sherman was.

[@Ko_Kasumi]

@@casioak1683 Chi Ha was classified as a medium tank, and the Ha Go was put into service some nine years before the M3 so y'know, one is clearly newer and should be constructed better which it was. As for the Chi Ha fun fact any Japanese tank with the first part of the name being Chi was a medium tank, with the exception of the I Go Ko which was technically a medium tank by their standards but was made before the naming scheme

[@emsipin9480]

The Stuarts made good account of themselves against the IJA during the defense of the Philippines but lack of ammunition, fuel, and spare parts meant that American forces weren’t able to utilize their armor to full effect. Also, the close confines of Jungle warfare meant that the Stuart’s advantages in armor and gun are largely negated since tank duels are largely fought at close ranges.

[@ľőŵďǒpė86]

i like the way you made this video with the lack of footage/images of this tank. well done.

[@tomsstuff7636]

Nice little video about a overlooked vehicle! These Japanese tanks often are kind of illusive at best when it comes to getting detailed information about them. In the Chi-Nu´s case, the improved models Chi-Nu Kai and Chi-Nu II with a new 7,5cm gun might be worth mentioning. An interesting topic would also be the development of the Type 4 Chi To and Type 5 Chi Ri with it´s roots reaching back to the time of the first creation of the Chi-Nu. However, really detailed information seems to be hard to come by, sadly. Anyway I really like your voiced articles as an addition to your website. Keep up the great work!

[@rubberwoody]

the chi-to was in development before the chi-nu and I'm pretty sure the CNK was just a testbed for a chi-to turret/gun

[@Thekilleroftanks]

@@rubberwoody not a test bet but a hold over. they had more chi to turrets than they did hulls but a lot of chi nu hulls. and well the turret of the chi to can be mounted to the chi nu so worse case they could mount a far better gun to a hull they already had in some supply.

[@rubberwoody]

@@Thekilleroftanks but that turret didn't end up getting used on the 2 production chi-to's right?

[@Thekilleroftanks]

@@rubberwoody i remember now, the kai is the chi to turret while the chi nu 2 is the chi nu with a modified turret and the better 75

[@tomsstuff7636]

@@rubberwoody Yep, youre right with the Chi-To, I got my information on development dates in the wrong year. I always had in mind April ´43 as start of the Chi-To development, but it in fact is April ´42 (quoting the Sensha-Manual blog here). CNK indeed seems to be a testbed vehicle, while the Chi-Nu II was a stopgap measure to get Type 5 AT guns fielded as quickly as possible in ´45. Apparantly it was destined for Chi Nu´s from No. 211 on to be built with the new gun until better tanks would replace them in production. As I said, information sometimes is a little scarce on these.

[@viniciusrodrigues121]

I loved how you used the wot game to demonstrate every aspect of the tank and its history, very cool.

[@fokinsnipahs9823]

I'll say, War Thunder would be better for detailed models and interiors.

[@fuckinantipope5511]

@@fokinsnipahs9823 the WoT models are just as good, if not even better sometimes. There are also no inside models in War Thunder if I remember correctly

[@12LoLproductions]

@@fuckinantipope5511 interiors are modeled, just not in great detail.

[@ClockWork-zj7zy]

War Thunder would probably be a more accurate and more detailed view of each of the tanks than WOT.

[@BHuang92]

In correction, the Type 90 caliber was reduced from the French 85mm modèle 1927 Schneider.

[@DeerHunter308]

One of your best videos yet. Thanks for doing these types of in depth histories.

[@rubberwoody]

this is probably the best edited and put together TE video I've seen

[@galahad-history]

Great work with WoT footage!

[@Theover4000]

This tank has always looked good to me. Shame they didn't even bother to send a few into battle.

[@rubberwoody]

the imperial japanese tanks always looked cool to me. The chi ha kai, the chi nu, the chi-to and chi-ri etc

[@thetankcommander3838]

It’s a sad thing that the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy were always at odds with each other. But as a result, the Army always fell behind. And even if the IJA wanted to transport these vehicles to the front, the massive surveillance and absolutely unrelenting patrols of American submarines in the vicinity of the Japanese shipping lanes and mainland islands would not permit such a transit without a fight. . . . . Neither would the United States or Commonwealth aerial forces. A sad ending that was only compounded by the inexhaustible quarrels of internal Imperial Japanese military politics.

[@PanzerdivisionWiking]

Great video guys, love the narrator as well

[@casual_viewer1]

Article author here hope you guys find both the video and the article interesting and entertaining .

[@reform-revolution]

They finally made a good tank ....... 4 years too late to matter the thought counts though

[@DOSFS]

DAMN YOU NAVY!! (and High Command too) /JP tanks actually really competitive.... until 1937 that is---

[@Unfassbarer]

Danke!

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

Thank you very much!

[@HanSolo__]

There is no turning back from now on! You have to cover the Type 74 and why it is still in service (no ERA!) aside most modern MBT Type 10 and the single "Wheeled Tank" i know the Type 16. They call it AFV or MCV but from what I know (I also asked and got confirm. by Mjr Nicolas Moran) - Japanese treat it as a tank with wheels in their doctrine.

[@likka3823]

I feel compelled to Give praise. Not only the thorough coverage of whatever topic were covering...but these graphics. We will Never SEE images or film of these tanks in some cases, like mostly japanese/Italian. But the graphics are so well done it makes your videos High brow Imagery= SERIOUSLY GOOD. Thank you. Keep em coming✌️

[@bowbowjang4281]

Great content guys! The WoT footage really gives the video some spice!

[@maxkronader5225]

It really sounds as if, Japanese nomenclature notwithstanding, that this was a turreted tank destroyer rather than an actual tank. The stress on speed and mobility, coupled with the use of an older chassis fitted with an improved gun in a lightly armored turret, all says "tank destroyer".

[@rubberwoody]

Depends on if you count the firefly or the charioteer as a tank destroyer. Also the turret was more armored than the chi-ha and he

[@CZ350tuner]

According to US range tests, on captured examples, the Japanese 57mm. L.18.5 could only penetrate up to 34mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 yards with APHE Type 90 shells. An M3 Stuart has 38mm. of frontal armour. Later AP-HE Type 97 shot (with bursting charge) could penetrate up to 42mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 yards.

[@色々保存サブ]

日本の短砲身57mm砲はタ弾を使う事で距離関係なく55mmの貫通力を出せる

[@weaponizedautism6589]

Great video! Please make more more of these on Japanese tanks. Would love to see one about the OI super heavy tank.

[@zali13]

By late 1944, when the remaining big Japanese battlewagons and carriers were just fuel-guzzling hulks fit only to be fed into the sacrificial Battle of the Leyte Gulf and American GIs were pouring into the Philippines, the idea of bigger tanks with bigger and better guns might not have seemed like such a waste of precious steel better diverted to the glorious cutting edge navy after all.

[@Lilith801-re9xl]

But they won't be able to ship them to the Philippines if they don't have those fleet in being.

[@Hardcase_Kara]

I'm curious if you could talk about the Shermans located in Flamenco Beach in Puerto Rico, one of them is near the water while the other is more on a grassy area, always wondered why they where their and if there used to be anymore.

[@Justin-rv7oy]

Does anybody know why the Type 3 has no internal turret machine gun (either coaxial or rear)? Pretty much all Japanese tanks have something, including the previous and follow on medium tanks to the Type 3 (the Type 97Kai and Type 4). I always assumed it may have had to do with the gun mounting, although the Type 3's turret is not small, and their appears to be space by the pistol port left of the gun or in the rear. Maybe they thought the bow MG and external turret mounted would suffice?

[@dirtyaznstyle4156]

How many crew are the type 4 or 97 supposed to have? I’m thinking a commander that also has to man the in turret machine gun can’t direct fire effectively, and a loader also tasked with loading and manning the machine gun does neither tasks well

[@Justin-rv7oy]

@@dirtyaznstyle4156 5 crew for the type 97 kai, type 3, and type 4, - 3 in the turret, which was the norm at that time for the Germans, British, etc, all who had coaxials.

[@rubberwoody]

my best inference is ease of production. the turret was a much simpler and boxier design than the chi-to, which had a side mounted machine gun iirc

[@shimose_rdx]

cramped turret

[@色々保存サブ]

97式などは日本の戦車砲特有の「肩当照準機構」という諸外国には無い独特の機構を持ち合わせていた、これは肩当て式のパッドを使い砲の向きの微調整を行ったり低速でのスタビライザーとしての効果があったが同軸機銃を取り付けるスペースがなかった、3式中戦車は大型の砲を搭載したためスペースがなかったのが主な理由、4式中戦車についてはわからない、他と同じく砲塔にスペースがなかった説、主力戦車に随伴して歩兵を殲滅する砲戦車に歩兵の対処を任せるため必要がないと判断された説、生産の工程を短くするために取り付けなかった説、4式中戦車に関しては全く理由がわからない

[@sinisterisrandom8537]

To be fully honest I'd say the last Samurai would have been the Type 4 Chi-To's. That long 75mm type II cannon would have been a proper equal fair fight. Oh and the Chi-Nu never saw combat, neither did the Chi-Ri's, To's, Ho-Ri's(mockup at this current point only the gun was tested so far). There is reports that the Ho-Nu I, II, and III(in very very very small numbers) did see service. At Iwo-Jima.

[@rubberwoody]

at least the chi nu had a production run

[@ihatecabbage7270]

Wow.... is pretty awesome that you used WoT to showcase the tank....... damn..... Now is like no more still images.

[@rubberwoody]

there aren't a lot of pictures of this tank left

[@thetankcommander3838]

Tank Encyclopedia I have to give you a lot of credit. Using simulations from World of Tanks is a wonderful new add that I think more videos should include. Keep up this level of work and you’ll have me coming back for even more than I already do.

[@pickeljarsforhillary102]

Japan: Yay! We can defeat the Sherman! US: Have you met Pershing?

[@teeanahera8949]

8:51 you state that the shells held 10g of high explosive. Ten grams is a tiny amount and difficult to imagine it having much effect. Note you immediately state they used as much explosive as possible to cause as much post penetration as possible and 10 g is just not gonna cut it. Despite Japan only using metric measurements you do break into yards a little before this.

[@Edario]

3:07 how did you do that in WOT? What mod did you use?

[@fernandomarques5166]

I'm pretty sure thats one of the cameras available in the replay mode.

[@sarunotaslt]

there is a mod in aslain modpack that allows you to see your tank in sniper mode

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

No mods have been used.

[@SirTanksALot-KV1]

How can be unable to penetrate an m3 Stuart?! I don’t know how that’s possible.

[@rubberwoody]

Over 50mm of armor

[@FRIEND_711]

This is an awesome video but it really needs to be updated. ^^""" I can find so many mistakes from nitpicks to just outright wrong. Especially the 4th tank division bit. I really need to finish my work and finally put that misconception to rest.

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

If you have feedback about the article on which the video is based on, we would be happy to hear you out!

[@FRIEND_711]

@@TanksEncyclopediaYT oh hello. I wasn't expecting any response at all, lmao. I could mention a lot more but I might talk about that on discord since I'm a member. Here though, just one huge error. The 4th Tank division was not stationed in Kyushu. They were stationed in Chiba near the capital. The error comes from the Japanese tank magazine, issue 12 I believe, where they mix similar photos of gathered disarmed tanks, one coming from the 4th tank division and the other from Kyushu. (Which I believe belongs to the 4th independent tank brigade, I've been combing over a lot of pieces and I'm making an article about it so I'll save the details for now.) The two photos look very similar and I don't blame anyone who believed them to be the same, I did too but you can tell they are different vis background and also tank placement and camo patterns. Also small nitpicks it's not the Type-3 Anti tank gun, it's the Type-3 tank gun, the gun was made specifically for tank use. It's like the type-1 47mm tank gun. If you say type-1 47mm Anti tank gun, its the one with wheels, but the type-1 tank gun is the one that is the main armament for the Chi-Ha Kai.

[@KARLMARX56]

​@@FRIEND_711 Wow, that's some detailed information. In the printing industry we had a saying... "It's off a little but only a printer will notice" You should offer your services as a technical editor. ✌️🍀

[@Ralphieboy]

Japanese steel output was so heavily committed to its navy that it left very little to put into manufacturing tanks in numbers large enough to be effective.

[@angelostriandos6659]

Nice !

[@CMDRFandragon]

Men of War was the first time i even knew Japan had other tanks besides the Chi Ha lol. Chi To is kinda a bad ass to. Armor of a Panzer IV, but gun of a Panther....more or less.

[@kevincocking8561]

love this channel always enjoy every episode

[@shimose_rdx]

where did you get a source for toku kou shell? I almost couldn't find anything on internet

[@teeanahera8949]

Did you look on Reddit?

[@shimose_rdx]

@@teeanahera8949 nah

[@nizalmuhammad9689]

Is type 3 chi nu have long barrel version?

[@atanasijesimic4651]

Yes, Chi-Nu Kai

[@jmmorante7576]

Nobody: My dumbass brain: Chi-He He

[@romanvarcolac2238]

The pronunciation of molybdenum here is such an annoying one XD. I hear like this so often in the US. Other than that, great informative video and narration!

[@Flankymanga]

3:09 whats is this game?

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

World of Tanks

[@scaredchalk]

What Game is the footage from?

[@Prehistoeif]

World of Tanks

[@kakakiri2601]

if chi nu had slope armor, it would be a good tank for me

[@conservativemike3768]

Japanese engineers of that period came up with many good designs, but without any materials or military-industrial coordination these designs mostly stayed on paper. After the war they were introduced to Quality Management by the American, Deming, and it was “off to the races.”

[@ymishaus2266]

09:13 Wood, you'll have to introduce me to this Molly B. Denim, she sounds like a classy gal.

[@SteamCrane]

Time delayed laugh!

[@andrewdewit4711]

Critical minerals were essential even back the in defence, with Japan’s shortages resulting in subpar ammunition and armor (including Yamato-class battleships). But in the present, people only think of critical minerals in relation to EVs and wind/solar. Not smart, considering modern tanks etc weapon systems require incredible amounts of rare earths, copper, tungsten, molybdenum, etc.

[@oaples8790]

whats with Japanese tanks and their lack of side mounted turret coax machineguns?

[@Kalashnikov413]

not enough room

[@vincentrees4970]

I feel like the Japanese had the same problem as the Italians; they had excellent ideas, but didn't have the industry or inclination to build and use their ideas, with alot of necessary resources going to the Navy.

[@tertmade9769]

Japan had the best designed amphibious tanks in WW2, they even made amphibious tank carrying 2 torpedoes to surprise US ships and it was successful, but only a very tiny margin cause only few were made

[@gweher43]

I would tend to disagree. Japan was very starved of raw material. Italy had more access to raw material. If japan had what Italy had they would have made more equipment coupled with the fanaticism of their government and people. Italian didn't even want to fight. Infact once America came in north Africa, the Italian mood changed as they had a soft spot for america

[@tertmade9769]

@@gweher43 Yes they were starved of resources, even Italians didn't have much resources, Japan spent most resources to their navy, when they lost the naval war, they spent them on their airplanes, even those were not enough

[@liammeech3702]

'Crew would dismount and attack' With what weapons?? Lol

[@williamchick6649]

Hi can anyone tell me what the Japanese names mean. Chi To the Chi Ri and the Chi Nu

[@rubberwoody]

basically "medium 7, medium 8, medium 9," etc.

[@tankguy5312]

I could already imagine if the french used somua s35 tanks again'st early japanese tanks.

[@Potatoesservedraw]

Do my favorite tank the M3 lee. I feel like it gets more hate than it deserves

[@insertjjs]

You should check out the book "tank tracks to Rangoon" about the British army tanks in the Burma theater and largely about the M3 Stuart and M3 Lees

[@genericpersonx333]

I don't think it gets that much hate so much as just not that much love. It was the uglier and inferior older brother of M4 Sherman and only had a brief time to shine before being replaced by a vehicle that did everything M3 Lee did well but did it better, so it was easy to forget what the users liked about it while it was the only option. In the tank games like World of Tanks and Warthunder, it is not a great vehicle because of how the games work, which misleads people as to the tank's historical capabilities. Either way, M3 is not a bad tank for 1942, but definitely not a great tank either, and we can thank our lucky stars that M4 was ready by 1943 to spare the US and British Armies needing to finish the war with M3 as a mainstay.

[@weaponizedautism6589]

It deserves every piece of hate it gets. The Soviets did not call it a 7 men death coffin for nothing. and thats from the army that had the T-34, another tank that was subpar in almost any way but gets praised because it could be produced by 3 toddlers and their grandmother.

[@genericpersonx333]

@@weaponizedautism6589 M3 performed well in Anglo-American service in 1942. It was not excellent, but it had a gun that could meet or beat the typical German weapon, armor that could just about keep out the average German weapon at the combat ranges they were fighting at, and it ran very reliably, ensuring most of them were functional most of the time unlike many other tanks of the era. These are not trivial concerns. Yes, the mounting for the 75mm was not optimal, but it was able to get that good gun to the fight and Germans and Brits alike definitely respected M3's capabilities at the time. We also have to observe that the Red Army's opinions were complicated. The same reports saying it was a deathtrap due to inadequate armor also praised its firepower and reliability, and it is thought by some, such as Steve Zaloga and other historians, that the Soviets would regularly exaggerate "problems" to encourage the Allies to rush more equipment in general. The Soviets were not stupid and were happy to claim they were on the verge of defeat if they didn't get X tons of this or Y tons of that every convoy because it seemed to work to get more good stuff for them sooner. So as I said, M3 was not a great tank, but it had its virtues that deserve recognition. I would rather be in M3 Medium than T34 or any of the British tanks of the time.

[@KaiserFrazer67]

Pretty sad when a tank like the Chi-Nu actually has a better combat record in an anime (Girls und Panzer's Anteater Team) than in real life... 😏

[@Wolfen443]

This is sad for the Japanese armor forces that in reality most of these more modern tanks never saw realistic practical or no action at all. So, all we got for footage is a post WWII video game?.

[@gweher43]

If America and Japan weren't in a hurry to scrap these tanks, they could have been used in the Korean War. America scraped the Chi To too

[@Adrian-me5wi]

Mitsubishi hmmm we driving their cars today 😢

[@Rika101OfficialYT]

This is not chi-nu, this is chicken nugget.

[@lorddavis778]

And they still don't add a proper coax machine gun on their turret 😭😭

[@rubberwoody]

No room

[@thefunnyfritz4035]

Why use wot and not War Thunder?

[@rubberwoody]

probably because it is easier to get your hands on a chi-nu in WOT than WT

[@thefunnyfritz4035]

@@rubberwoody hahahaha true

[@bigturn1051]

Because like 5 people give a shit

[@watcherzero5256]

You know your struggling as a major power when Canada is outproducing you in tanks during the war by more than 30-1.

[@protosszocker5678]

Well tanks ain't easy to unload on a small pacific island and even shittier in driving through jungle. Esp if it is heavy enough to fight other tanks.

[@watcherzero5256]

@@protosszocker5678 Yeah issue is the tanks they were facing were heavy enough to do that and not struggle in the jungle. In the battle for Burma for example the 254th & 255th Indian Tank Brigades and 116th Regiment Royal Armoured Corps (about 100 mostly sherman and some stuarts) crushed the 50 Japanese tanks. One sherman supported by Gurkha ran rampart single handedly wiping out an entire bunker line.

[@rubberwoody]

compare Canada's navy to Japan

[@weaponizedautism6589]

@@protosszocker5678 japanese tanks actually had very good jungle performance because of their engines being very moist resistant. Its just that they thought their tanks were good enough to keep the chinese at bay while the navy was supposed to keep the Americans at bay. The first one was true. however the second one..........

[@deadby15]

I think Imperial Japanese tanks were at the same level as the Italian tanks. About 5 years behind other powers.

[@mukadewolf530]

Please do a O-I using WOT video editing

[@Adrian-me5wi]

Banzai

[@richardbradley2335]

2.38....for the first and only time in its life this sight becomes terrifying for an enemy.

[@rubberwoody]

I'm sure most people were terrified of a 75mm sherman.

[@richardbradley2335]

@@rubberwoody In 1942 in the desert...after that ???

[@rubberwoody]

@@richardbradley2335 pretty much anyone not in a tiger or king tiger Not like the 75 was weak

[@weaponizedautism6589]

@@rubberwoody At the meantime PZ IV's were slapping Shermans left right and center despite being 6 years older design. No one feared Shermans dude. they were just fast to produce. thats it.

[@rubberwoody]

@@weaponizedautism6589 pretty sure shermans had no problem taking out pz IVs. not to mention the pzIV's the shermans were fighting were NOT the same tank with the 75mm lobber at the blitzkreig 6 years prior. a tank is still a tank

[@Packless1]

...Team Anteater...! ;-)

[@chadrowe8452]

Let's make an offensive weapon and use it only for defense

[@まーくん-x6y]

能無し海軍により陸軍は苦労したんやで。

[@trappenweisseguy27]

Molybdenum is pronounced Mo-lib-deh-num

[@mikepette4422]

I sometimes wonder about the tactics the Japanese used. It seems to me that they really didn't have ANY tactics except, either ambush and bunkers on defense or human wave on offence. Other than that they just relied on superior numbers when you look at most of the early war battles. I can only think that malaya was the only time when they used a lot of well planned infantry tactics. They really didn't have a whole lot of manpower to toss away but they did it because come up with any better options. This is all on the Japanese generals.

[@BHuang92]

Unlike Germany and Italy, Japanese tactics mainly focus on alot of amphibious operations, mainly quick decisive naval engagements. You have to consider what the Japanese had to face which is dense jungles and far flung islands. Their goal in winning the war was to inflict allot of damage so that their enemies can sue for peace. Of course that didn't work all that well in hindsight but that was a viable tactic they had as the only choice.

[@duke0salt717]

What Wood. Bruh you're from Pushblock

[@CaucAsianSasquatch]

I'd like to present your channel on my show. Sasquatch Shills

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

Thank you for wanting to shill our channel, but we're not interested.

[@CaucAsianSasquatch]

@@TanksEncyclopediaYT Doesn't matter. Probably next Thursday, you're on my watch list so you're in. I specifically enjoy the technical details you include. Fascinating. Really a fantastic channel.

[@dirkbonesteel]

Standard Japanese WW2 tank was roughly equivalent to a 1974 Ford LTD wagon with a 40mm taped to the roof

[@i_nameless_i-jgsdf]

Should have used Chi-Nu from War Thunder, their models are outstanding.

[@SmartassX1]

Basically, this tank would have made sense in 1940. By 1943, it was a complete joke and could only be used in places where reconnaissance had already confirmed the complete absence of enemy armored vehicles.

[@rubberwoody]

considering the sherman wasn't out until 1942, i think this tank would be fine in 1943

[@SmartassX1]

@@rubberwoody OK, so a joke by 44 then. Also, they would have faced the T-34 .

[@rubberwoody]

@@SmartassX1 t34 has comparable armor to the Sherman. So. They'd still be able to kill them. Just. They don't have any armor themselves lol

[@kirkstinson7316]

Sherman had gun stabilizer better optics and better TC vision. Other then ambush I think the Sherman would get first shot and that would end the Japanese tank. T34/85 would do ok but USSR would have a bunch of heavies with them that would give the Japanese tank a real problem

[@vanders4198]

Use War Thunder footage. Such a better and more realistic game.

[@bigturn1051]

War Thunder footage will only make the tanks move more realistically. WoT is much easier to film, and looks better.

[@Galvars]

@@bigturn1051 WoT looks better... what?

[@funkervogt47]

Maybe they should have copied the Stug III instead.

[@FairladyS130]

Japanese were able to do quick upgrades, US no.

[@rubberwoody]

what do you mean there were like 15 different types of sherman alone

[@FairladyS130]

@@rubberwoody There were basically two Sherman versions over the whole war, suspension and gun change. Stop trying to excuse failure.

[@rubberwoody]

@@FairladyS130 there were tons of versions But think about what you mean by quick. The chi-nu is a "quick upgrade" of a tank from 1937. In that same time America went from the M2 medium through the M3, the m4, and was testing the pershing The Sherman worked fine. Didn't need to be upgraded especially in the pacfic. The chi ha didn't.

[@kirkstinson7316]

​@@FairladyS130 Your completely wrong. There were at least 4 engine variations, 5 if you include the diesel. Hull changes. 2 main gun changes. Just because YOU look at an M4 of any variation and go "Sherman" because you don't know all the changes doesn't mean there were none. And the Sherman was more then a match for Japanese tanks used in combat so why change it anyway?

[@FairladyS130]

@@kirkstinson7316 Same tank with different engines simply because the US could not supply just one good engine. The two significant versions involved different guns and suspension.

[@comentedonakeyboard]

To little to late (given hindsight)

[@brothergrimaldus3836]

Please learn how to properly pronounce Molybdenum.

[@PBLKGaming]

That's not how the script spelled it I'm sorry