ground vehicles JGSDF M47 Patton

[WayOfTheWolk 1,573]

JGSDF M47 Patton

Introduction: 

The first thing War Thunder players might think of when they hear of a Japanese medium tank is the STA series of prototypes and while they are right to think that it's only half the picture. In the early 1950s the newly formed Japanese Ground Self Defense Force was equipped with aging ex-American vehicles from the Second World War. The armored corps was considered outdated and with the increased communist threat after the Korean War it proved a priority for the government to seek modernization. Naturally the United States would be then contacted for new equipment with great interest in the new M47 Patton, a staple tank of America's cold war allies. Efforts to order the vehicle however proved unsuccessful as American assembly lines were backlogged with foreign orders under Marshall Plan aid. Unable to procure foreign assistance the Japanese were given an M47 for evaluation purposes as a model to build their own domestically produced designs. The M47, the forerunner of cold war Japanese tanks would heavily influence the design of the STA series accumulating in the final design of the Type 61. After testing concluded in the 1960s the tank was likely scrapped as no further records can be found of its existence. 

 

A Japanese M47 in War Thunder: 

The inclusion of this special vehicle into the Japanese Ground Forces tech tree is an invaluable addition. The historical background of this particular M47 as well as its secretive nature makes it appealing as a possible premium or event vehicle but I will leave that choice up to the general community. Much like in the American tree the M47 Patton can provide the Japanese with a balanced mix between superb mobility, good armor and potent firepower. A back up for the STB-1 and other rank 5 Japanese vehicles the M47 signifies a strong support role as another useful addition to the Japanese ground forces tree.

 

Specifications:

Manufacturer: Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant

Combat weight: 44.1 ton

Crew: 4-5 (commander, driver, assistant driver, gunner, loader)

Engine: Continental AV-1790-5B V12

Engine power: 810 hp at 2800 rpm

Power-to-weight: 17.6 hp/ton

Transmission: General Motors CD-850-4, 5 speed forward, 1 reverse

Suspension: Torsion Bar

Top speed: 48 km/h

Reverse speed: -14 km/h

Turret rotation speed: 30°/s

Vertical guidance: -10 / 19 

 

 

Armament:

Main Gun:

90 mm M3A1 

Stowage: 71 rounds 

 

Ammunition:

M318A1 APBC 

M82 APCBC 

M332 APCR 

M71A1 HE 

M431 HEAT-FS 

M313  Smoke

 

Pintle Mount

12.7 mm M2HB 

Stowage: 1000 rounds

 

Coaxial Mount

7.62 mm M1919A4

Stowage: 2500 rounds

 

Sources:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M47_Patton
• https://sat.militaryblog.jp/e155840.html
• http://shachonokobeya.blog71.fc2.com/blog-entry-186.html

 

Edited September 14, 2020 by WayOfTheWolk

[leroyonly 4,310]

Open for discussion. 

[Miki_Hoshii 2,449]

While not completely necessary, I wouldn't mind seeing this come to WT as a prem or event vehicle.  

[Solarmod 1,203]

+1 in general tbh, I'd prefer tree but I'm not picky.

[aizenns 3,591]

+1 for premium, but photo of M47 on OP is not M47 of JSDF/TRDI.

http://shachonokobeya.blog71.fc2.com/blog-entry-186.html

This one owned by Japanese military shop for manias, “Nakata Shoten”. These tanks in the garage assembled from scraps from US Army Tokyo Ordnance Depot (it placed Akabane so in this blog it called Akabane Depot)

That scrap was M47 of US Army used at Korean War, so it is not a M47 leased to Japanese for research to develop STA.

 

Edit:

Scrap of M47 sold to Japanese is not only this one. American tanks were using good steel, and in that time Japanese didn’t have enough resources so they used steels from scraps for the Tokyo Tower. They used 90 tanks (M4 and M47) that mainly for structures over observatory.

http://crd.ndl.go.jp/reference/modules/d3ndlcrdentry/index.php?page=ref_view&id=1000203656

Edited October 8, 2019 by aizenns

[WayOfTheWolk 1,573]

20 minutes ago, aizenns said:

+1 for premium, but photo of M47 on OP is not M47 of JSDF/TRDI.

http://shachonokobeya.blog71.fc2.com/blog-entry-186.html

This one owned by Japanese military shop for manias, “Nakata Shoten”. These tanks in the garage assembled from scraps from US Army Tokyo Ordnance Depot (it placed Akabane so in this blog it called Akabane Depot)

That scrap was M47 of US Army used at Korean War, so it is not a M47 leased to Japanese for research to develop STA.

 

Edit:

Scrap of M47 sold to Japanese is not only this one. American tanks were using good steel, and in that time Japanese didn’t have enough resources so they used steels from scraps for the Tokyo Tower. They used 90 tanks (M4 and M47) that mainly for structures over observatory.

http://crd.ndl.go.jp/reference/modules/d3ndlcrdentry/index.php?page=ref_view&id=1000203656

Out of curiosity but then where is the one that they actually evaluated, was it scrapped? The Wikipedia article makes mention that the tank at Nakata is the same one used in testing. 

[aizenns 3,591]

5 minutes ago, Private_Wolk said:

Out of curiosity but then where is the one that they actually evaluated, was it scrapped? The Wikipedia article makes mention that the tank at Nakata is the same one used in testing. 

But only Wikipedia says so. At least other blogs that talked with owner, these tanks were used at US Army.

Also in this garage not only M47 but also M36, M37, M41 and M59. M36 of JSDF imported only one and now there are JGSDF ordnance school, and all Japanese M41 returned to US and some of them leased to Taiwan again so they are not JSDF’s one. Also Japanese did not have M59.

So I think these tanks are not scraps from JSDF. Japanese M47 will scrapped or returned US but there aren’t enough information.

[Milocat 4,854]

Sure.  +1.

[kamikazi21358 998]

+1

[N-Glycerin@psn 89]

+1

[Wiggly_Armed_Man 2,383]

While I would like something to fill in the gap between the Type 61 (6.7) and the STB-1 (7.7), since this wasn't used in any operational status I have to give this a -1. This would be the equivalent of giving the Americans a Tiger because one was sent over to them for evaluation after the war. However, I wouldn't mind this being a premium vehicle if it ever is added, though I don't believe it should be in the regular tree for the reasons I have already stated.

[Abrams_X 1,234]

-1, Unlike Kpz M47, this was given for evaluation/testing purpose, not JSDF service. No reason to give it to Japan.

 

@Private_WolkPlease add No option to the Question 2.

Edited October 10, 2019 by MuhAbroomz

[WayOfTheWolk 1,573]

5 minutes ago, MuhAbroomz said:

-1, Unlike Kpz M47, this was given for evaluation/testing purpose, not JSDF service. No reason to give it to Japan.

 

@Private_WolkPlease add No option to the Question 2.

The JGSDF purchased the vehicle, it's an integral influence of Japanese tank design. If you're not okay with the M47 then I'm sure you're not happy with all the prototypes we have that were never accepted into service. I made this an option to counter the additions of more prototypes into the Japanese tree similar to the suggestion on the M36B2. Do you offer an alternative to the M47 none of us know about?

[Abrams_X 1,234]

18 minutes ago, Private_Wolk said:

The JGSDF purchased the vehicle, it's an integral influence of Japanese tank design. If you're not okay with the M47 then I'm sure you're not happy with all the prototypes we have that were never accepted into service. I made this an option to counter the additions of more prototypes into the Japanese tree similar to the suggestion on the M36B2. Do you offer an alternative to the M47 none of us know about?

No, "Prototypes" are different from this. Domestic prototypes, like ST-A series and ST-B series are always welcome, and I want to see them in game. However, this is just a solid copy paste of American vehicle. Prototypes also never enter service, but at least, they are domestic design, and unique.

 

Also, either change my mind, or add "I already voted No in first question" option to the question 2.

Edited October 10, 2019 by MuhAbroomz

[Tasty95215 2,099]

I'd prefer if more of the Type 61/Type 74 variants and prototypes were added first, but I suppose the M47 might work as a premium after the aforementioned tanks were added. The fact that there aren't any actual pictures of the M47 being tested by the JGSDF is disappointing, though.

[WayOfTheWolk 1,573]

5 minutes ago, MuhAbroomz said:

No, "Prototypes" are different from this. Domestic prototypes, like ST-A series and ST-B series are always welcome, and I want to see them in game. However, this is just a solid copy paste of American vehicle. Prototypes also never enter service, but at least, they are domestic design, and unique.

 

Also, either change my mind, or add "I already voted No in first question" option to the question 2.

Yes but there becomes a point where having too many prototypes creates a problem, we are experiencing this conflict currently with the French and Italian tech trees. Many prototypes having questionable data statistics and lack of primary sources to back them up, the M47 is not nearly as controversial as some of these designs like the O-I heavy tank. In fact some of them are completely factitious when considering the Ho-Ri Production which was a mashup of different designs conceived by Gaijin. I am taking the safe route here and proposing a conventional tank. It doesn't have to be in the regular tree however, it can be a premium or event vehicle like I have previously suggested. Also why do I need a "no" option for the second question, is it not clear that has already been asked in the first question?

[Abrams_X 1,234]

1 minute ago, Private_Wolk said:

Also why do I need a "no" option for the second question, is it not clear that has already been asked in the first question?

Because I should vote both question to submit. Check other suggestions, "I already voted no" is a must if you have more than 2 questions.

3 minutes ago, Private_Wolk said:

Yes but there becomes a point where having too many prototypes creates a problem, we are experiencing this conflict currently with the French and Italian tech trees. Many prototypes having questionable data statistics and lack of primary sources to back them up, the M47 is not nearly as controversial as some of these designs like the O-I heavy tank. In fact some of them are completely factitious when considering the Ho-Ri Production which was a mashup of different designs conceived by Gaijin. I am taking the safe route here and proposing a conventional tank. It doesn't have to be in the regular tree however, it can be a premium or event vehicle like I have previously suggested.

As I said, no. Domestic prototypes are completely different. And except the French Jumbo Sherman, I can't find any other examples similar to this vehicle in both French and Italian tech tree.

[WayOfTheWolk 1,573]

5 minutes ago, MuhAbroomz said:

Because I should vote both question to submit. Check other suggestions, "I already voted no" is a must if you have more than 2 questions.

As I said, no. Domestic prototypes are completely different. And except the French Jumbo Sherman, I can't find any other examples similar to this vehicle in both French and Italian tech tree.

So you don't care if the information on said prototype is inaccurate, false or lack of? If the Japanese tested the tank I see no problem with its addition. We already know how the M47 performs in War Thunder and it would be a simple copy/paste job for the developers, why waste that opportunity? So basically what you're saying to me is because the vehicle is not indigenous to Japan you don't want it at all. Well in that case I want the M41A1, M24 Chaffee and M4A3 (76) W removed because they are direct copy/paste American vehicles. And while we're at it why not remove the STA series and Type 61 since they are based off the M47 tested for evaluation. You can't have it all your way.

[Abrams_X 1,234]

25 minutes ago, Private_Wolk said:

So you don't care if the information on said prototype is inaccurate, false or lack of? If the Japanese tested the tank I see no problem with its addition. We already know how the M47 performs in War Thunder and it would be a simple copy/paste job for the developers, why waste that opportunity? So basically what you're saying to me is because the vehicle is not indigenous to Japan you don't want it at all. Well in that case I want the M41A1, M24 Chaffee and M4A3 (76) W removed because they are direct copy/paste American vehicles. And while we're at it why not remove the STA series and Type 61 since they are based off the M47 tested for evaluation. You can't have it all your way.

You're totally wrong, and completely missed my point. M41A1, M24 and M4A3 saw service in JGSDF, unlike the M47. Not because the vehicle is not indigenous to Japan, but because of it never saw service in Japan while being COMPLETELY copy paste.

Edited October 10, 2019 by MuhAbroomz

[Wiggly_Armed_Man 2,383]

13 hours ago, Private_Wolk said:

The JGSDF purchased the vehicle, it's an integral influence of Japanese tank design. If you're not okay with the M47 then I'm sure you're not happy with all the prototypes we have that were never accepted into service. I made this an option to counter the additions of more prototypes into the Japanese tree similar to the suggestion on the M36B2. Do you offer an alternative to the M47 none of us know about?

As I stated in my earlier post this was not even a prototype or expected to enter service. It was simply an evaluation vehicle, in the same manner that the United States received Tigers after World War II and evaluated them, and like them both that doesn't warrant enough cause for them to be included in the tech tree as a regular vehicle. I cannot think of an alternative to the M47 at the moment but that doesn't mean it should be included.

[Solarmod 1,203]

Thought I already +1'ed this, so I'll say that, and leave y'all to argue 

[Melphine 74]

+1 Would like it as a Premium like the German one!

[SasquatchFox360 1,006]

On 10/10/2019 at 06:59, OK_Boomer said:

-1, Unlike Kpz M47, this was given for evaluation/testing purpose, not JSDF service. No reason to give it to Japan.

 

@Private_WolkPlease add No option to the Question 2.

OK Boomer

[Blakir 16]

+1 Since Type 61 based on patton, I don't mind having two patton at same br.

[SasquatchFox360 1,006]

15 minutes ago, The_WarTana said:

+1 Since Type 61 based on patton, I don't mind having two patton at same br.

Type 61 is far from being patton