Now, the basics: Ho-Ri tank destroyer is a project based on the Type 5 Chi-Ri hull. Type 5 Chi-Ri was the most advanced Japanese medium tank, developed by the end of the war for defending Japan from the invasion. It was better than the Sherman and there were several projects, including a Chi-Ri II, if I understand it correctly (various armament variants were proposed too, including a belt-fed 75mm and an indigenous 88mm gun). In its ultimate form, it would be roughly equal to Panther II I think. This is how the single prototype looked:
It's very likely we will see the Chi-Ri in World of Tanks (tier 7-8) in the upcoming Japanese tank tree. Either way, the Ho-Ri was supposed to be an Elefant-inspired heavy tank destroyer, based on the Chi-Ri chassis. The "classic" drawing (also quoted by wiki) depicts it as this:
As you can see, it DOES resemble the Elefant in a way. According to SoukouDragon, there are two variants (just like there were two Chi-Ri hulls). Here is the wooden model picture and stats SoukouDragon found during his research:
I will now quote SoukouDragon himself, because he describes it the best:
I have a gut feeling that this was the initial design conception and that later, for practical reasons, the Chi Ri hull was used for the elephant looking one we are all familiar with.
One thing to consider is that the 37mm seems to have an important contribution to the design rather then just being there as a leftover from using the Chi Ri hull.
1. It would be used to defend the tank from close range anti tank weapons.
2. To be used as a spotting rifle for the main weapon for long range shooting.
3. To shoot smoke rounds to provide cover for the tank.
4. The firing arc for the 37mm was +20 -15. Pretty nifty gun depression if multi gun support was available. 10 degrees to the left and to the right for a total of 20.
There does not seem to be any place for the 37mm cannon in the sloped version of the Ho Ri 1. If the designers wanted the 37mm to be installed, then they may have dropped the sloped design in favor for the Chi Ri`s 37mm. But in any case, it leaves the door open that both of the Ho Ri 1 TDs can be used. The slopped TD version could be part of the regular TD line, filling in a rather critical spot, or be used as a premium.
Unfortunately, the Maru magazine that I got this from and Haru`s 1978 book "Japan`s Tanks" don`t explain why there are two Ho Ri 1s. But nevertheless, both existed as projects with the Chi Ri based Ho Ri with the 37mm being closer to realization.
Another picture depicts the second version of the Ho-Ri tank destroyer, this time without the sloped frontal armor, but with the frontal 37mm:
Again, to quote SoukouDragon:
Most noticeable thing is the 20mm AA gun on top of the engine compartment. As far as WoT is concerned it does nothing. But I think it adds a rather cool look, like the AA gun on the IS7.That's right, the 105mm gun had an autoloader. How cool is that :) One project used the variant without an autoloader, the other had an autoloader. And what does SoukouDragon think about their WoT implementation?
The Maru article says that even though Hara`s book says the Ho Ri 2 would carry 60 rounds of the 105mm, careful examination of this schematic suggest a load of 48 105mm rounds. The 37mm gets 100 rounds. The firing arc of the 105mm is +20 -10. Left and right being 11 for a total of 22 (better then I would have thought).
The 105mm cannon was specifically designed for the Ho Ri TDs. Like mentioned before, it had an auto loader and the rounds are single piece. To help with the increase influx of gas from the cannon during high RoF, a ventilation system was on top of the fighting compartment. There is also a periscope at the top of the fighting compartment. It is the close-up picture to the left of the machine gun picture. This periscope would be used in long range shooting. Well at least, that is an argument for the Ho Ri 2 to have good view range.
The Maru magazine didn't mention armor but the wiki has it at 125 front and 25 on the side.
It is interesting to note that the 105mm for the Ka To was a different development. The Ho Ri`s 105mm was completed in May 1945 whereas the Ka To`s 105mm was completed when the war ended, I guess either August or September of 1945. The Ka To was a TD variant of the Chi To while the Ho Ri`s were TD variants of the Chi Ri.
Regarding the 105mm gun's performance: it could penetrate 150mm at 1000m, the shell weighted 33kg.
Yea they still fit tier 8 and 9 and they have to. But they will be glass cannons, espicially the tier 9 TD. It is probably why the devs have mentioned the idea of a TD variant of the O-I for the top tier to help with armor. Their strengths will be firepower, good mobility, and good gun depression. Tier 8, the front armor is not terrible but it will be difficult to angle the front armor of 125(mm) because the side is so incredibly thin...25(mm).
Source: http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/51183-japanese-tank-tree-guns-discussion/ (with SoukouDragon's permission)
I want to see Japanese tanks so badly...
ReplyDeleteI said it before, I don't care if the tanks suck or if they run on sake, Japan FTW!!!!!!!!
Delete-EmperorSafirius
Hell Yeah! I want to be able to shout at the start of the battle: "FOR THE EMPEROR!!!" :D
DeleteTenno heika ! Banzai!
Delete_FALX_ EU
So the gun has 105 mm and this would translate to WoT standarts as 300 dmg per shot for regular kinetic rounds.
ReplyDeleteCan someone calculate the penetration ? 150mm penetration at 1000 meter to 100 meters?
Also, characteristics of Chi-Ri chassis (max speed, engine, tracks, dimensions, ground clearance )would be very useful to envision this TD's performance in WoT.
I'm quite interested in Japanese tanks, we might face something more outlandish than even Chinese tanks:D
PalmNut
105mm is translated to 320dmg in game.
DeleteAlso higher tier vehicles get damage bumps, for example, tier X 105mm guns do 390dmg.
Difficult to say, given the notorious quality of Japanese tank rounds. I'm guessing something like the 12,8 cm PaK 44 L/55, based on the muzzle velocity of 916 m/s.
DeleteI wrote a "comprehensive" list of Japanese guns and penetration before, so check it out: http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/51183-japanese-tank-tree-guns-discussion/page__st__2300__pid__3705210#entry3705210
I'm going to have to antithetically disagree with the Chi-Ri as a tier 7, let alone a tier 8. At least the proper prototype one that was mostly built that everyone is familiar with. The guns and size are not quite up for those tiers.I would think they are better fit at tier 6. Branching between the heavy and medium lines.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I don't think a 105mm is good enough for a tier 8 TD, definitely not a tier 9 TD.
I agree. The Chi-Ri is like a poor man's Tiger I even when the 88mm gun is mounted. But still it seems WG will most like place Type 3 Chi-Nu at Tier 5 and Type 4 Chi-Ru at Tier 6, so I think Chi-Ri will be Tier 7.
DeleteCorrection: Type 4 Chi-TO
DeleteNot necessarily. There were plans to upgrade the Chi-Ri to move it into production. There included not insignificant hull changes.
Delete"Additionally, I don't think a 105mm is good enough for a tier 8 TD, definitely not a tier 9 TD."
DeleteWell we could have a T95 situation. It was built and equipped with a 105mm gun, and The_Chieftain has said they can upcaliber(75/76->90,90->105, 105->120 etc...) it if necessary
fast, small, invisible, glass TD with autoloader?
ReplyDeleteALREADY LOVE IT
I doubt it will be small & fast, the Chi-Ri has a big hull.
DeleteTeh Wiki also gives the parent design a 45 km/h topspeed and ~15 hp/ton, so "fast" is a relative term.
DeleteAlso, 37mm bow gun?
*facepalm*
At a period when most armies had begun realising even an MG there was fukken useless deadweight and a protection weakspot? Way to be up to date guys...
Well at least they'd apparently managed to pry a few welding torches off the Navy (which probably no longer had the steel to build more tonnage anyway), so the rivets are finally out of the picture.
I agree that the Chi Ri can not qualify for tier 8 but it can qualify for tier 7 with the 75mm belt fed cannon. I will write up something in-depth about the Chi Ri in a week or so.
ReplyDeleteThe Ho Ri will need more than a 105mm for tier 9. That upgrade can be the Type 3 120mm AA cannon. In fact it was the auto-loader mechanism from this AA cannon that was used in the Ho Ri`s 105mm cannon.
-SoukouDragon
Chi-To's VK 36.01 (H) to Chi-Ri's (medium) Tiger I is what I have in mind.
DeleteNot with the pen of the 75mm it won't. It would be like throwing the 30mm German Autocannon on a tier 6 as its top gun and saying it is balanced because "RoF".
DeleteAlso 36.01 has heavy tank armor, Chi-To does not. Chi-To matches more to a 3001H or 3001P.
On Chi-Ri -> Tiger 1 comparison, you would need a cannon to put on it.
Where have you been when I showed how the Chi-To prototype had the same effective armor as the VK 36.01 (H)?
DeleteHow likely is WG to go with what was produced with what what prototyped?
DeleteI suppose that that explains an option with the Chi-To but it still doesn't explain the Chi-Ri counterparting the Tiger 1.
Tiger is a sniper.
DeleteThe Chi Ri with the 75mm belt fed would be more of a flanker, wolf packer, and ambusher. It wont rely on the gun to penetrate head-on against heavy armor like the tiger`s 88L71 can. Instead it will look for the sides or anything else with medium level armor. And when it does, the high RoF will decimate the target. The DPM should be the highest out of the tier 7 mediums. That would make it very dangerous for other mediums to attempt brawling with in 1v1. And it would make any tier 9 tank take extra precaution to not expose it`s weaker armor to a Chi Ri.
Now unless the Chi Ri gets access to a 105mm cannon, which theoretically the turret can handle the weapon, then it becomes more of a big punching bag sniper like the tiger rather then the role the 75mm belt fed would give it.
-SoukouDragon
A final note, the Type 5 75mm penetration would be similar to what is found on the DB`s 88mm. The RoF would balance it.
Delete-SoukouDragon
And the DB is regarded as one of the worst if not the worst tier 7 meds because of the low pen. It also has more armor and a lower profile. The belt fed gun requires the giant Chi-Ri turret as well.
DeleteDoes belt-feeding shells that large even *work*...? 'Cause the last I checked even 20-40mm autocannon tended to use virtually every feed system imaginable *except* that...
DeleteAlso the DB's 88mm has shit-all pen and nobody in their right minds should use it; 75mm L/70 pew-pew ftw.
Actually preferred weapon is to fling HEAT with the 105.
Delete75L70 had tier 5 dpm before this last patch, not sure what it is now.
Well, check my stats. I have over 750 games with the DB and I love it and I used the 88mm straight through since researching it. Despite my somewhat average overall WR at 52, I have a 56 WR in the DB, my best WR with tanks that have a large number of games played. A medium does not need great pen when it flanks. Thus only occasionally do I load in a premium round. The T-43 and KV-13 are also great mediums, but I`m sticking with the DB... and of course, the Panther.
DeleteThe Chi Ri`s greater DPM would offset the big size. The armor is not that much worse.
Kellomies, It was an experimental system that was eventually dropped. However the Japanese did intend on it working, which is why they designed such a large turret to begin worth. I`ll make a more in-depth post on the Chi Ri later.
-SoukouDragon
I'm not sure if you've played it recently.
DeleteBut since I first played my DB the armor and normalization changes have caused the 132mm of pen it has to simply fall to the wayside. Tanks it used to pen frontally, like the T29, now can resist decently the T20's 90mm.
You are limited virtually entirely to side shots with mediocre accuracy and aim time.
The L/70 is essentially the equivalent of the 77mm on the Comet, and has nigh identical RoF to boot. (In comparision the 85mm on the T-43/KV-13 trade some RoF and pen for somewhat better alpha.) Goes well with the recently improved maneuverability.
DeleteAnwyways, "did intend on it working" sounds suspiciously like it *didn't*...
""Anwyways, "did intend on it working" sounds suspiciously like it *didn't*...""
DeleteIs completely invalid when you have all of the "paper" plans floating around in game based upon parts that were made and combing the real parts with design plans that may or may not have eventually made it to production. If we have wooden mock ups being made into "real" tanks in game then this, TD Ho-Ri, is fine with me.
NEMO.
You seem to have missed that I'm not actually discussing whether it 'should' be added or not, but anyway that's fallacious resoning of the "if Jesus then aliens" type.
DeleteSee, the difference is that there's an sich no principal technical reason why any given tank design would not have worked, whether it ever left the drawing board or not; the basic technology involved demonstrably worked after all.
Conversely it rather appears there *is* some kind of real technical problem with large-caliber belt-feeders that renders the proposed system fundamentally suspect.
Messed with http://ftr-wot.blogspot.cz/2013/04/e-50-weserhutte.html a bit.
ReplyDeleteThe Japanese section looking interesting and sounds plausible. Cannon selection might be an issue but I am sure that the AA guns or something off of a navy ship could be used if need be.
I have used those two (both the Chi-Ri and Ho-Ri) in another game called Men of War and the armor seemed weak against the japanese anti-tank guns, even if they had low caliber
ReplyDeleteI don't know how good their designs were but I have heard that some of the designs developed at the end of WWII were more than capable of defeating the american tanks
one thing I also thought strange was that some of their medium tanks (some of those ready before the war ended) were made by welding several steel plates and that made them look like big jigsaws, I wonder if that will make them have more weak-spots where those plates are welded together especially against arty
I played Men of War, too, but their armor wasn't that weak. In-game, Chi-Ri has like 100 mm front and 75 mm side, same for the turret. Ho-Ri has about 150 to 180 mm front. Of course, they were buffed for balance in the game.
DeleteThe guns seem decent enough, but TBH I must wonder what *else* the "better than Sherman" sales pitch is supposed to be based on - armour seems pretty mediocre plus unsloped to boot, the layout archaic (front drives ahoy) and I'm pretty sure that suspension system was positively antediluvian by late-war standards.
DeleteNo idea what Armando means with that bit about welding, hough; I looked through the lot in Wiki and they seemed to be perfectly normal welded hulls... if anything I'd associate "jigsaw" appereance with the interlocking plates the Germans used.
for someone who has played "Men of War" he must have noticed that even the stronger tanks in the japanese faction are made by welding several steel plates
DeleteI think it's logical to say that a tank made by welding 3 steel plates have more weak spots than if the same portion of the tank were made with a single steel plate, that's why I said they looked like "jigsaws"
take the later Sherman versions as an example and you can notice that the frontal armor and side armor are made with a single steel plate and we all know that the "Sherman Jumbo" frontal armor as few weak spots
The "Jumbo" AFAIK only had a frontal weak spot in the bow MG port, which was more or less universal and unavoidable (and one reason why those were abandoned). Welded construction does not an sich result in any kind of structural weakness, so long as the welding is good; while cast hulls and turrets (generally easily recognizable by their more rounded shapes, eg. ingame basic Sherman vs. E8 or "Jumbo") obviously don't have to worry about the seams their main advantage was AFAIK faster and cheaper mass-production once the industrial infrastructure was in place.
DeleteOTOH I assume castings gave less fine control over the specific metallurgical qualities of the plate and probably made later modifying the design more difficult, since you had to redo the casting moulds to accommodate the changes.