Talk:Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Need References
editThis article has a lot of good information in it, but it needs some references. For instance, the assertion that the "Japanese sucessfully put air-cooled diesel engines into the practical use for first time in the world in 1934" cries out for verification. Anyone know the source of this fact, or authors/titles of texts from which the information in this article is culled from? Geeman 21:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- This article makes it sound like it was Japan's first air-cooled diesel, not the world's first. If it hasn't already been changed, I'll do it sometime today, as I have to be to work shortly. Parsecboy 12:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Who would have thought, that Japan was such a great tank-nation in WW2? :)
It is always fascinating to read about the great armor battles of Tarawa and Iwo Jima....
I am not sure about the reference to the Japanese encountering the M3 Medium Tank in the invasion of the Philippines. I believe that there were a few M2 Mediums and some M3 Light tanks available in the philippines at the time, but if I remember correctly the M3 (Grant and Lee in British use) did not enter combat unitil North Africa in 1942.
- I just changed that. There were M3 light tanks in the Phillipines in 1942. There were no mediums of any type. DMorpheus 14:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how many U.S. tanks were at Okinawa, but it certainly was no where near 800. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.186.244 (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, I just flagged it. 800 tanks would be about 16 battalions' worth. IIRC there were four US divisions on Okinawa, so it is likely there were 3-5 tank battalions with them. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly 800 is too many, but seeing as American tank losses on Okinawa amounted to around 150, the number might be higher than one would figure at first blush. By the way, six American divisions fought on Okinawa, four Army (7th, 96th, 77th, and 27th) and two Marine (1st and 6th) with a seventh (2nd Marine) in reserve.--172.190.68.60 (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- According to http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/okinawa/appA.htm each division had either an organic or an attached medium tank battalion, plus 20th Armored Group, which would be something like 2 or 3 additional medium tank battalions. So that would come out to about 8 or 9 battalions or 400-450 tanks. --Yaush (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly 800 is too many, but seeing as American tank losses on Okinawa amounted to around 150, the number might be higher than one would figure at first blush. By the way, six American divisions fought on Okinawa, four Army (7th, 96th, 77th, and 27th) and two Marine (1st and 6th) with a seventh (2nd Marine) in reserve.--172.190.68.60 (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, I just flagged it. 800 tanks would be about 16 battalions' worth. IIRC there were four US divisions on Okinawa, so it is likely there were 3-5 tank battalions with them. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Suitability of sources
editI note that the first line of the references is to the assembly instructions for a /model/ of the tank.203.129.57.221 11:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Removed this reference--MChew (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)