| The Gray Ghost | 29 Jan 2010 1:22 p.m. PST |
In a straight up clash of armor, who wins. |
| FatherOfAllLogic | 29 Jan 2010 1:39 p.m. PST |
|
 Saber6   | 29 Jan 2010 1:52 p.m. PST |
Hmm both of these are main suppliers to my AK47 Republic (L'tMune) |
| Frederick | 29 Jan 2010 1:54 p.m. PST |
Second vote for Italy You had to be a brave soldier indeed to serve in a Type 97 (most common Japanese medium tank) |
| Jakar Nilson | 29 Jan 2010 1:54 p.m. PST |
Japan. Type 3s, 4s & 5s beat P.40s hands down. |
| Kaoschallenged | 29 Jan 2010 1:56 p.m. PST |
Pre-1943 or Post-1943 ;). Robert |
| tuscaloosa | 29 Jan 2010 1:58 p.m. PST |
They did fight in 1943, but I think that was pretty much a straight infantry battle, so history doesn't tell us how the tanks would have fared…. In the infantry fight (in China, against Italian possessions after the Italian surrender) I think the Japanese won. I vaguely recall it was a Squad Leader scenario. |
| ComradeCommissar | 29 Jan 2010 1:59 p.m. PST |
In a straight up clash of armor, who wins. The Allies! |
| Battle Phlox | 29 Jan 2010 2:06 p.m. PST |
Japan. Their forces are better trained and motivated as a whole. A big shortcomming of Japan's forces was armor. The Soviets rolled over their forces in east Asia. italy only has mediocre armor. Japan's navy would also probably outclass Italy's. |
| Kaoschallenged | 29 Jan 2010 2:07 p.m. PST |
Hey tuscaloosa.This Geocities web site is now gone on this subject :(. "The Italian Armed Forces in China, 1937-1943" But it is saved here, link And here, link Robert |
| Griefbringer | 29 Jan 2010 2:12 p.m. PST |
What if both sides only had MG-armed tankettes available? |
| donlowry | 29 Jan 2010 2:42 p.m. PST |
What if both sides only had MG-armed tankettes available? Then I guess they'd still be out there bouncing bullets off of each other. :) |
| tuscaloosa | 29 Jan 2010 2:47 p.m. PST |
|
| Kaoschallenged | 29 Jan 2010 3:46 p.m. PST |
I liked that and this article too. Robert "Italian Submarines and Surface Vessels in the Far East" link |
| Martin Rapier | 29 Jan 2010 5:09 p.m. PST |
In a clash of armour? The Italians have three armoured divisions, the Japanese have none. Italy. |
| badger22 | 29 Jan 2010 5:44 p.m. PST |
as the germans showed in France in 1940, it isnt just the gear, it is the training and doctrine. Many of the crews in North Afrika performed well, even if they where let down by thier gear. The Japanese had no compareable organization, or body of experience. so anywhere that is remotely armor friendly, Italy |
| raducci | 29 Jan 2010 7:11 p.m. PST |
Yes, where are they fighting?
In Malaya: Japan.
In North Africa: Italy. |
| wwiiogre | 29 Jan 2010 7:49 p.m. PST |
Italians and then some in a battle of armor. Gear, morale, training. I give it to the Italians. They fought to last vehicle when the Germans fled in North Africa. They took on T34's with L6's, nuff said. :) Chris |
| WarpSpeed | 29 Jan 2010 9:25 p.m. PST |
Despite the technical inferiority of their equiptment the Italian tankers showed great courage and often bravado in North Africa.Imagine what a thrill it would be for them to have a quality advantage coupled with an organizational advantage the Japaneses could not hope to match.Only difference is that the defending Japanese Smertnikis wouldnt need a 500 lb aerial bomb and such a deep foxhole ,im sure a 250 and a shell scrape would suffice. |
| Kaoschallenged | 29 Jan 2010 9:29 p.m. PST |
Wow wwiiogre!! "They took on T34's with L6's, nuff said.". Do you have some sources for that? I would love to read more. Robert |
| Deserter | 30 Jan 2010 3:13 a.m. PST |
I must try this one:-) I have both Italian and Japanese tanks in 1/300… |
| Arrigo | 30 Jan 2010 6:41 a.m. PST |
San Marco marines agaisnt Japanese occupation infantery in china… Italy. In the end we surrendered beacuse in Tianjin we do not have a lot of alternative other than that. But we were more than holding our own (ok San Marco was supposed to be elite, in 1943 rear area garrisons in China were a mixed bag). Armor vs Armor, the italian had the edge. Better doctrine, better vehicle and organization. Plus Armor forces were top of the line for selecting troops 9both for infantry and tankers) and our arty while not the best equipped in the world was fearsome (doctrinally it was better than german ones, we were able to mass fire from divisions and corps in short notice, sadly the gun were often WW1 vintage). Arrigo |
| wwiiogre | 30 Jan 2010 11:34 p.m. PST |
The Italians had L6's the Soviets had T34's, what references do you need. I didn't say the Italians won with their L6's but that is what they had. They also faced T70's and KV's as well. But most likely they died when trying to do that. I have used my Italian L6's against the Soviets many times in FoW and I get my axe handed to me if I expose them to just about anything with an AT rating over 2. Which is everything but r/mg and smg. So it takes guts to play in tin cans when your enemy has real tanks. Chris |
| Kaoschallenged | 30 Jan 2010 11:38 p.m. PST |
OH. I thought that your statement "They took on T34's with L6's" implied that there was actual combat between the two. I was just wondering if there were any sources describing any such encounters. Robert |
| beartooth | 31 Jan 2010 10:56 a.m. PST |
As a matter of fact the Japanese had 4 armoured divisions scattered about the place. Not that I'd be tempted to put money on them winning either. Japanese win hands down on looks mind you. |
