There are a number of theories about rear facing machine guns were: 1. To be used once the tank has broken through the enemy lines. This followed inter-war doctrine that tanks would break through enemy trenches and be followed by infantry 2. To be able to have a rear firing MG in situations where the turret could not be traversed and / or in CQB e.g. Jungle or urban warfare 3. The MG's main value was in suppression so having once MG in the Hull you probably didn't require another. Having one in the rear therefore gave better all-round coverage with less time to traverse. Inter-war tanks had slow traverse speeds (Japanese early war tanks were notorious for this) so the ability to cover the rear arc was more important than 2 MGs in front.
The rear facing machine guns were a holdover from interwar ideas of how tanks would function. As for other countries that used them, the Soviets had a few heavy tanks with rear mounted MGs.
In regards to the rear facing machine guns, these Japanese tanks are mostly pre war designs. If you look at other pre war designs from Europe, we see the same thing. U.S. designs were covered in machine guns almost comically so. Clearly there was a consensus among tank designers that machine guns should go anywhere they fit. We would now of course call this silly or even wasteful. I like that these are very affordable points wise, being a cheap way to get some fire support. I don't collect any Japanese troops yet, but it is nice to see they do have some vehicle options.
@@hashbrownjr Interesting. I know some tanks covered in machine guns had some of the guns removed by their crews for the purposes of crew comfort. I believe the designer's intent was so the tanks in a formation could cover each other, but that is mere speculation on my part.
It was to eliminate a blind spot when the main armament was pointed at a target and an infantry or cavalry unit showed up and was planning on swarming or ambushing the tank and it's more vulnerable rear engine, fuel, or even track's since the drive sprockets was located there but not always (Sherman and Pz- III to just name a few where they was on the front). But in practice this theory just didn't present itself. The Soviets diff kept the rear turret MG as even the IS-2 had it.
It was often used turned forwards in combat. It was a design workaround due to the relevantly narrow turret ring most of Japanese tanks making coaxial mg impractical. This is a different reason to the Russian IS-2 tank.
The Shin Hoto Chi Ha is solid! I started playing against a mate who started playing the other side of the US starter. 186 for a cheap anti tank gun is great. Shermans are good to but having a cheap tank frees you up a bit and having it be veteran def makes it a target that's hard to hit
the best japanese vehicle is the artillery tractor: 17 points, 6+, wheeled, with 6 slot for passengers and tow: everyting. I mean, it's point cost it's wrong in soo many way lol
Yes, it sure is! It can be built with either engine deck and still be historically correct. The main difference was "upgunning" the turret to a higher velocity 47mm cannon.
I feel like Warlord should add some Chinese infantry options to help round out the pacific theater.
There are a number of theories about rear facing machine guns were:
1. To be used once the tank has broken through the enemy lines. This followed inter-war doctrine that tanks would break through enemy trenches and be followed by infantry
2. To be able to have a rear firing MG in situations where the turret could not be traversed and / or in CQB e.g. Jungle or urban warfare
3. The MG's main value was in suppression so having once MG in the Hull you probably didn't require another. Having one in the rear therefore gave better all-round coverage with less time to traverse. Inter-war tanks had slow traverse speeds (Japanese early war tanks were notorious for this) so the ability to cover the rear arc was more important than 2 MGs in front.
The rear facing machine guns were a holdover from interwar ideas of how tanks would function.
As for other countries that used them, the Soviets had a few heavy tanks with rear mounted MGs.
In regards to the rear facing machine guns, these Japanese tanks are mostly pre war designs. If you look at other pre war designs from Europe, we see the same thing. U.S. designs were covered in machine guns almost comically so. Clearly there was a consensus among tank designers that machine guns should go anywhere they fit. We would now of course call this silly or even wasteful.
I like that these are very affordable points wise, being a cheap way to get some fire support. I don't collect any Japanese troops yet, but it is nice to see they do have some vehicle options.
Also I have read or heard that they didn't fire them whilst facing the rear they would turn it around to face the front
@@hashbrownjr Interesting. I know some tanks covered in machine guns had some of the guns removed by their crews for the purposes of crew comfort. I believe the designer's intent was so the tanks in a formation could cover each other, but that is mere speculation on my part.
It was to eliminate a blind spot when the main armament was pointed at a target and an infantry or cavalry unit showed up and was planning on swarming or ambushing the tank and it's more vulnerable rear engine, fuel, or even track's since the drive sprockets was located there but not always (Sherman and Pz- III to just name a few where they was on the front). But in practice this theory just didn't present itself. The Soviets diff kept the rear turret MG as even the IS-2 had it.
It was often used turned forwards in combat.
It was a design workaround due to the relevantly narrow turret ring most of Japanese tanks making coaxial mg impractical.
This is a different reason to the Russian IS-2 tank.
@@CS-zn6pp fascinating, sounds like a very poor design choice.
I just started building an IJA army and remembered you did this video. thanks for the tips & ideas.
I wish you'd do more videos! 😀 I love my light amphibious tank and su-ki amphibious truck
No Ha-Go? Love the vid tho
The Shin Hoto Chi Ha is solid! I started playing against a mate who started playing the other side of the US starter.
186 for a cheap anti tank gun is great. Shermans are good to but having a cheap tank frees you up a bit and having it be veteran def makes it a target that's hard to hit
the best japanese vehicle is the artillery tractor: 17 points, 6+, wheeled, with 6 slot for passengers and tow: everyting.
I mean, it's point cost it's wrong in soo many way lol
Is the chi ha kai the alternate option in the chi ha kit from warlord?
Yes, it sure is! It can be built with either engine deck and still be historically correct. The main difference was "upgunning" the turret to a higher velocity 47mm cannon.
@@elcasey thank you! ive always known the up gunned version as the shinhoto
Any Konflikt’47 content planned?
i am not sure but i think the rear facing machine guns were a poor mans version of a co-ax.
😂it feels like all 10 are in it