Talk:Type 1 Chi-He medium tank
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combat record
editClarification may be needed on the Type 1's possible combat record. Mentioned is the 2nd Division, the link to which indicates that the unit was in Burma in 1944, not the Philippines. If it was actually the 2nd Armored Division, one still has to account for the fact that it was on Luzon, not Leyte, though part of the division may have been sent to reinforce Leyte. I don't have the Zaloga book, so could someone who does try to clarify the situation?172.190.17.171 (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It is correct that the Chi He was deployed on the Philippines, and the sources do indeed talk about Luzon. So the claim on Wiki that the tank only was deployed on the home islands is incorrect. There's at least two images with Australian troopers with captured tanks of this model, and either or both might indeed be from Burma. But I got no information on that part of the question asked above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.208.185.94 (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Type 1 in China
editI have removed this paragraph:
After the end of World War II, Type 1 Chi-He tanks captured by the Soviet Red Army were turned over to the Communists Chinese army for use in the Chinese Civil War against the National Revolutionary Army. The Gongchen tank (功臣號|p=gōngchénhào) is the Chinese designation for a Type 1 Chi-He used by the People's Liberation Army (PLA). It was the first tank used by the PLA during the Chinese Civil War.[1][2][3][4] After victory, the PLA continued to use Type 1 Chi-He tanks in their inventory.[5]
References
- ^ 兵器戰術圖解雜誌，2004年7月號。中國之翼出版社。
- ^ 人民军队装甲兵史上第一车——“功臣号”坦克, 中国人民革命军事博物馆
- ^ 郭得河, 彭泉生, (2003). 走进中国人民革命军亊博物馆. 兵器工业出版社. ISBN 9787801721327.
- ^ 中国人民解放军历史图志 (Vol.2). 2007, 世纪出版集团.
- ^ Tomczyk 2007, p. 22.
This is based on inaccurate information in the Tomczyk book and possibly in Chinese references which I can't access (the URL does not exist). The well-known 'Type 1' Gohchen tank' is actually a Type 97 Shinhoto Chi-Ha (as evidenced by the riveted front hull vs the welded hull of the Type 1. Until some evidence for a real 'Type 1' in PLA service shows up we should leave this out. 86.141.175.171 08:52, 5 January 2018
- I have both books. You statement is not correct that, "This is based on inaccurate information in the Tomczyk book". Neither WP:RS book by Tomczyk, nor "Zaloga 2007 p 20", state the "Gohchen tank" was a Type 1 Chi-He; and Zaloga does not say that Type 1 tanks were not used by the Chinese Army. What is stated is that Type 95's, and versions of Type 97 based tanks were captured by the Soviets and turned over to the Red Chinese Army for use. I will re-check for specifics in detail. I can say that the "Gohchen tank" info is mainly based on Chinese and other sources. I will not restore that part. I will say that in looking at the photo of the "Gohchen tank" on display from the museum photo, it has the extended front fenders of a Chi-He; but, that tank was "restored" by the Chinese government, so who know how much of the tank is original. Kierzek (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Type 97 Ka-So command tank
editDoubt on the naming: The number Type 97 is weird. It looks like an error in the source. The Ka-So was based on the Type 1 Chi-He as a successor to the Type 97 Shi-Ki. Being based on Chi-He it cannot have a lower year number than Chi-He. Searched for further references. They all seem to just copy the Wikipedia naming. Does anyone have further information? --JuergenKlueser (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I checked the RS sources in detail for the information and made copy edits, accordingly. The earlier Shi-Ki command tank was based on the Type 97 Chi-Ha chassis and the replacement command tank Ka-So was based on the Type 1 Chi-He. The type designation that was used in the article was not totally correct. The Chi-He was in the direct lineage of the Type 97 family, but had changes and distinct features of its own. Thanks for the query, Kierzek (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)