Overview:
The Type 47 is a Sino-Japanese main battle tank introduced in 1947. This is an assessment of the tank by the Paternian Army, compared to the M6A1 and M6A3 Ardent main battle tanks in service. A simple and effective main battle tank, it may not be considered suitable for use by the Paternian Army, but is nonetheless a powerful and respectable tank.

Mobility:
The Type 47's mobility is quite good in many aspects. The 680hp ZTS-680 engine, while less powerful than the 900hp AVS-900 employed by the Ardent, is fitted to a lighter vehicle, approximately 40 tons, giving it a good power-weight ratio of 17hp/ton, somewhat favorable over the 16.36 hp/ton ratio.

A significant flaw in the mobility is the rudimentary suspension. While not hindering the vehicle's physical mobility by a large degree, it does make it a rougher ride for the crew, causing greater fatigue and reducing crew effectiveness. This is an issue during long marches, extended combat, maneuvering through rough terrain, and firing on the move, where a smoother suspension would be preferable.

It is believed that the simplistic suspension are so that less advanced manufacturing facilities in the R.O.C. are able to produce them easily. It also appears that the designers knew about the deficiencies about using such a simple suspension in regards for crew comfort; there are handles within the turret compartment for crew members to hold onto, and the driver is provided with a three-point safety belt.

Armor:
The armor is very strong from the front, rivalling, if not exceeding, the armor on the M6A3. The turret armor is significantly thicker than both the M6A1 and M6A3 turrets, and is much better rounded. However, the hull armor of the M6A1 and M6A3 is superior. Although the base armor is thinner, the sloping is greater, thus providing 600+mm of effective frontal armor, versus the 400+mm of effective frontal armor on the Type 47.

Firepower:
The M6A1 Ardent is equipped with a 90mm M45 cannon, while the Type 47 and M6A3 Ardent are equipped with the 105mm L7 and the 105mm M68, respectively. Both the Type 47 and the M6A3 have the same effective firepower, as the M68 is a licensed copy of the 105mm L7.

Despite the equal parity of gun firepower, the Type 47 is considered inferior to the M6A3 due to the following factors:
-Cramped crew compartment
-Inferior suspension

However, it is considered superior to the M6A1, firepower-wise, due to the following factors:
-2 axis gun stabilization
-More powerful main armament

All three machines were put through the test course, where the crews must move to various set positions over different terrain (mud, sand, hills, etc.,) and engage targets at various ranges.

Here is the mean course times for the three vehicles over five trials:
M6A1: 25 min 54 sec
M6A3: 20 min 11 sec
Type 47: 23 min 23 sec

Because of the basic suspension, the Type 47 tends to rock when put in a sudden stop. Therefore, the Type 47 performed the worse than the M6A3, but somewhat better than the M6A1. This is due to the superior stabilization of the gun, which was partially negated by the poor suspension. In addition, the poor ergonomics affected accuracy and rate of fire. The Paternian Army concludes that while the Type 47 has good firepower, it is less capable of taking advantage of it than the M6A1 and M6A3.

However, the M6A1 and the M6A3 do have smaller elevation angles (+20/-8) versus the Type 47 (+35/-10), making it less suitable in urban combat and in mountainous areas. In addition, the Type 47's turret design is more capable of employing a hull-down defensive position than the M6A1 or M6A3.

Ergonomics:
The Type 47 did not provide an adequate level of ergonomics for many of the tankers who tested it. Some of the taller Paternian crewmen were unable to fit inside without significant discomfort.

Most complaints about space came from taller people, however, indicating that this was less of an issue in the Chinese and Japanese forces than it was with Paternian forces due to the smaller stature of Asians. Complaints about working space were less severe with the use of smaller Paternian crewmen. Even then, they considered the Type 47 rather cramped compared to Paternian vehicles.

The reason for the poor ergonomics is the lower profile and hemispherical turret, significantly reducing the available internal space in the turret. The M6A1 and M6A3 turrets have greater usable internal volume.

Visibility:
Visibility from the tank is as good, if not better, than the M6A1 and M6A3. The commander's cupola gave good visibility at all angles, versus the more limited vision arc of the Paternian tanks. The optics are of a higher quality than the Paternian vehicles, in part due to the high standards of construction employed with the optics.

The Type 47 and the M6A3 have active infrared night-vision systems. However, the M6A1 lacks this, and is therefore at a significant disadvantage in night combat compared to the other two.