Talk:Type 95 Ha-Go light tank

message: This is unsourced, but, worse, has no units of measurement. --Thatnewguy (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think  this tank was the inspiration for the fictional Scorpion Tank of the Command and Conquer Generals video game.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.162.121 (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Specifications box

message: WWII Medium tanks will be 30 tons, give or take.  Light tanks will be 10 tons or less (give or tank).  The Sherman is, was, and always will be a medium tank.  When comparing the IJA Type 95 light tank to other tanks, try to compare it to an allied (in this case US) LIGHT TANK!  Some examples are: M2A4 light tank, M3 & M5 (Stuart) light tanks, M24 Chaffee light tanks, M41 Walker Bulldog light tanks (this is the only light tank that is NOT a WWII tank).  The M41 fought in the Vietnam War (used only by the South Vietnamese Army).
When you compare the Type 95 light tank to the M4 Sherman medium tank, that is like comparing a VW bug (car) to a full-size pick-up truck or SUV.  Or like comparing a dog to a horse (size wise).  So try to compare light tanks TO LIGHT TANKS; and comparing medium tanks to medium tanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.160.54 (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: WWII Medium and Light Tanks

message: The following sentence is unsourced and unverified-"The hand-operated turret was small and extremely cramped for even the one crewman normally located there (the commander), and was only being able to rotate in a 45 degree forward arc, leaving the back to be covered by the rear-facing machine gun which failed to compensate for this significant disadvantage"  what is curious about the statement of the 45 degree arc statement is that the picture of the tank at Tarawa clearly has its turret rotated toward the left rear quadrant of the tank- clearly more than the 45 degree forward arc stated in the sentence.--214.27.124.46 15:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But the tank in that photo has been knocked out. Possibly the turret has been forced around by an impact? Yorkist (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design  

message: The first paragraph of this section is a little odd. It goes into lots of technical detail about the armour of both side's tanks, then gives no details of the result of the clash. The final sentence, unreferenced, then seems to imply it was a Japanese victory.Yorkist (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems this section is mostly copied from 192nd_Tank_Battalion#America.27s_first_clash_of_armor, so I've clarified it from there. Yorkist (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: America's first clash of armor in WWII

message: Although the Spanish Civil War of 1936 was the first major clash of armor since WWI, the opposing forces consisted largely of obsolete WWI era cannon armed and machine gun armed tanks against Russian supplied high velocity 45mm gunned tanks.
Nomonhan, on the other hand, altough occuring later in 1939, consisted of history's first massive clash of strictly cannon armed tanks; IJA 37mm gun Type 95s against Soviet BT tanks which were equipped with high velocity 45s.  It was this experience that resulted in the Soviets switching from gasoline powered tanks to diesel powered tanks. Specifically, the Russian T-34, whiched entered the field shortly after Nomonhan.
In final, the diesel and cannon armed tank (which, at the time was the Type 95) was the right combination for a main battle tank; and not a gasoline fueled cannon armed tank.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.21.110 (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Gen. [[Georgy Zhukov]] and [[Joseph Stalin]] Discuss Burning [[Russian]] [[Tank]]s at [[Nomonhan]]

message: This sub-section has been marked uncited to an WP:RS source since August 2011. An inline note states it is WP:OR; "As can be seen in article's edit history, this list has been created by user Torb37 and not confirmed by any reliable source." I checked and it was added by 2007 blocked editor Torb37, back in August 2006. So, it has been uncited for over ten years. It involves units equipped with Type 95 Ha-Gō. Does anyone have an RS source to check this section and cite it accordingly; if not, it should be removed. It has been hanging out there uncited, long enough. Kierzek (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I will wait a few days before removing the section, if no improvement/RS citing is done. Kierzek (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I am removing this section, per the above stated reasons. Kierzek (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese WWII units equipped with Type 95 Ha-Gō 

message: Text says the gun is not the same as the Type 94 37mm AT gun, but how many different 37mm guns did the Japanese develop in 1934? I very much doubt they developed an entirely different gun for use in this tank alone. At least it is a mere designation change, more likely a variant of the Type 94. Variants section links to the page on the Type 94 AT gun when discussing the early shorter barrel variant, so I assume they took a Type 94 and lengthened the barrel to make it into a "Type 94 Tank Gun". Which begs he question, if it was designed "like most light tanks" to support infantry, why are they giving it a longer barrel than their standard AT gun? You do that to fight armor. Infantry support guns dont need muzzle velocity. 
Of course I find the idea that light tanks are meant to support infantry to be ridiculous. Light tanks are meant to be fast and mobile. Infantry tanks are meant to support infantry, and they are the exact opposite of light tanks. Why are light and cruiser tanks given little armor and small guns with no or useless explosive shells if they are for infantry support? An M3 Light tank went 35-40mph and had a main gun that only fired solid AP shot. What part of that is useful for supporting infantry? Light tanks are meant for rapid exploitation and scouting, flank attacks, etc.
Also, it tells us the armor is 'far inferior' to the M3 Light, but it doesnt tell how thick it actually is. Lighter than M3, that hardly seems possible. Is it only enough to stop standard rifle rounds, or what?
64.223.106.178 (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type 94 37mm 

message: Allied Panzer (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It did not say that in wars the Type 95 ha-go fought in. I saw Kahlon Gol and WW2 but not the Second Sine Japanese War. Might have been fixed if so sorry for wasting your time. Allied Panzer (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. Kierzek (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didn’t the Ha-Go see service in the 2nd Sino-Japanese war.