Diskussion:Liste von Kettenfahrzeugen der Streitkräfte des Japanischen Kaiserreiches

Ich verschiebe die folgende Diskussion mal von meiner Benutzer-Diskussionsseite hierher:

Experimental tank destroyer Ka-To

Hello: Let me start off by saying that I appreciate all the work you have done to add further knowledge and detail for general readers on the subject of Japanese tanks and AFV, etc. Also, your addition of photos of same on WikiMedia Commons, as well. The entry here on your "List of tracked vehicles of the Armed Forces of the Empire of Japan and the Imperial Japanese Navy", Experimental tank destroyer Ka-To states, "planned self-propelled gun based on the experimental Chi-So tractor..."

However, according to RS sources, the open top superstructure was based on the Type 5 Na-To. See Tomczyk, Japanese Armor Vol. 5. (2007), pages 36, 37. According to several sources, the Ka-To hull was based on the Type 4 Chi-To, which needed to be extended in length to accommodate the main gun. An extra road wheel was added to each side of the chassis.(See Taki and there are several other Japanese sources for same). Then according to Tomczyk, the hull was based on the Type 5 Chi-Ri medium tank chassis. See Tomczyk, Japanese Armor Vol. 5. (2007), pages 36, 37. As for something based on the Chi-So armored medium tracked carrier, the Type 5 Na-To made use of the chassis and superstructure of the Type 4 Chi-So. As did the Type 4 Ha-To, self-propelled mortar. See Taki and Tomczyk, Japanese Armor Vol. 5. (2007), pages 12, 13. There is a photo of the Chi-So on WikiMedia Commons. Note: I have only made a couple of edits on German Wikipedia, but you can write me on English Wikipedia or WikiMedia Commons. Cheers, --Kierzek (Diskussion) 20:43, 6. Dez. 2023 (CET)

Thx for the reply. I wasn´t too sure someone would be interested in my work especially as it´s written in german.

Pre-Prototype vehicles are always problematic and I wasn´t sure it it was a good idea to add the Ka-To. But the gun existed so I decided to do so. There are many unknown things about Chi-So and Ka-To even in japanese sources. Regarding the details:

• AFAIK are there no known pictures of a Chi-So tracked carrier. The picture on WikiMedia Commons shows a pic of a vehicle which is well-known to me as part of a picture series about a test of the Type 5 Na-To (same details like open hatches etc. and camo). In my opinion it was just retouched and mirrored.

base picture

That´s why I do not use it.

• Regarding Ka-To: All evidence for this vehicle I know is a set of drawings on millimeter paper showing three views of a vehicle with what I interpreted as a largely modified Chi-So hull on a suspension with eight roadwheels. But noone inside the japanese author´s community (specially Taki and Kunimoto Yasufumi, co-author of a book on this topic in the japanese Gakken book series) can really say if this drawing is made prior- or post-surrender. Yes, there seem to be many differences to the Chi-So but in the end almost all are speculative. Generally the number of available details on this vehicle is very limited. So I´ve decided to write "Chi-So based" and remained vague on details. This way I think it gives a better idea of the general shape. Maybe I can add more in the planned rework of the Type 5 Na-To article.
• and related: In my opinion there is a lot of what-if in the five-side-drawing of the Ka-To in Tomczyk, Japanese Armor Vol. 5. (2007). I wouldn´t use it even if the drawing would not be copyright protected.

And as an explanation to my german-only readers:

Kurze Zusammenfassung:

Wir haben über ein Bild vom Typ 4 Vollkettentransporter Chi-So gesprochen, das ich für eine retuschierte Version eines Typ 5 Waffenträgers Na-To halte. Zudem diskutieren ein wenig die Quellen- und Bildlage zu Informationen zum Fahrzeug 10-cm-Waffenträger Ka-To aus meinem Übersichtsartikel zu den Kettenfahrzeugen des Kaiserlich-Japanischen Heeres. Der Kollege hat unter anderem angemerkt, dass er weitergehende Quellen dazu hat. Diese sind mir bekannt. Ich habe sie aber nicht verwendet, weil dort meiner Meinung nach zu viele spekulative Anteile enthalten sind.

Gruß/Yours Mastertom211 (Diskussion) 02:56, 7. Dez. 2023 (CET)

--Mastertom211 (Diskussion) 02:56, 7. Dez. 2023 (CET)