Railer99

Japanese Super Heavy Type 4/5

32 posts in this topic

Type 2605 aka Type 4/5

Stats

Weight: 200t

Crew:11

Armament: 150-200mm cannon

Engine: two BMW 12 cylinder engine

Speed:20-30km/h 

Armor: 180-200(possibly)

serb heavy tank 3.jpg

266px-Type_4_and_5_turret_bunker_mode.jpg

This tank is basically a Japanese version of the German Maus and E100

People have already talked about adding the OI tanks in the game. What about the Type 4/5 heavy? Can it be added to the game?

Edited by Railer99
4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

16 minutes ago, Railer99 said:

Type 2605 aka Type 4/5

Stats

Weight: 200t

Crew:11

Armament: 150-200mm cannon

Engine: two BMW 12 cylinder engine

Speed:20-30km/h 

Armor: 180-200(possibly)

serb heavy tank 3.jpg

266px-Type_4_and_5_turret_bunker_mode.jpg

This tank is basically a Japanese version of the German Maus and E100

People have already talked about adding the OI tanks in the game. What about the Type 4/5 heavy? Can it be added to the game?

 

 

I would recommend asking the expert about it (PM her): @Mai_Waffentrager

 

Good luck! ;)

Edited by Results45
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be nice see this vehicle (and variants) in game, could be a perfect addtion for BR 6.0+

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this one made up by WG? 

On 12/14/2016 at 1:18 PM, Protoboy17 said:

Would be nice see this vehicle (and variants) in game, could be a perfect addtion for BR 6.0+

That's like saying Maus would be perfect for 6.0 br. 

Edited by Shimapan
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Shimapan said:

Isn't this one made up by WG?


Nope, it was built but only pictures you could find publicly is of the turret

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2016 at 3:18 AM, Protoboy17 said:

Would be nice see this vehicle (and variants) in game, could be a perfect addtion for BR 6.0+

 

7.0 actually but yeah.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Type 2604 and Type 2605 were intended to use 12.7 cm/50 3rd Year Type and 14 cm/50 3rd Year Type naval cannons.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Results45 said:

 

Obj. 279/T58-T110* ftw ;D

 

*autoloads 120mm shells in 3.5 seconds

 

well...

 

did the autoloader systems for these tanks work like the autoloaded belt of the chi ri or more of the modern "autoloading system" we see today, if the latter, then no, what you describe would be inaccurate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Optical_Ilyushin said:

 

well...

 

did the autoloader systems for these tanks work like the autoloaded belt of the chi ri or more of the modern "autoloading system" we see today, if the latter, then no, what you describe would be inaccurate.

 

As Mai states here, the Chi-Ri II's loading mechanism had a max design rate of 30rpm, but at such rates caused significant unreliability (which will allow the devs to the trim it down to a more sustainable speed within 15-20rpm).

 

The 120mm T57/155mm T58 developed as technology testbeds up until the army's decision on the M103 (T43) had design autoloading rates of 30 & 23 rounds per minute respectively that IMHO would stand more practically at 20rpm and 15rpm (as listed below):

 

Hunnicutt Firepower T57 tank and gun specifications.png

Hunnicutt Firepower T58 tank and gun specifications.png

 

In contrast, the T110 was being developed alongside the T43 as a lower profile, lighter, faster, and frontally better sloped alternative to the M103, but was cancelled upon final evaluation of the T43/M103 prototype.

 

Might it had been developed further and integrated the T57's 120mm gun, it probably could have US's first production heavy tank to have an autoloader.

Edited by Results45
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Results45 said:

 

As Mai states here, the Chi-Ri II's loading mechanism had a max design rate of 30rpm, but at such rates caused significant unreliability (which will allow the devs to the trim it down to a more sustainable speed within 15-20rpm).

 

The 120mm T57/155mm T58 were developed as technology testbeds up until the army's decision on the M103 (T43) had design autoloading rates of 30 & 23 rounds per minute respectively that IMHO would stand more practically at 20rpm and 15rpm (as listed below):

 

Hunnicutt Firepower T57 tank and gun specifications.png

Hunnicutt Firepower T58 tank and gun specifications.png

 

In contrast, the T110 was being developed alongside the T43 as a lower profile, lighter, faster, and frontally better sloped alternative to the M103, but was cancelled upon final evaluation of the T43/M103 prototype.

 

Might it had been developed further and integrated the T57's 120mm gun, it probably could have US's first production heavy tank to have an autoloader.

 

these rates look kinda amazing, given that even modern autoloaders barely hit 12 rounds/min. for 120+mm rounds, I can imagine a 155mm autoloading system from the cold war being given some very generous estimates there.

 

do they have this off of testing data? i.e. did they test this off of a T58 with an autoloader installed or did they test the autoloading system separately and presume this would be the case? I am getting no data found on any firing tests, wikipedia only shows they suffered weight restrictions and the oscillating turret design standard set of issues.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Optical_Ilyushin said:

 

these rates look kinda amazing, given that even modern autoloaders barely hit 12 rounds/min. for 120+mm rounds, I can imagine a 155mm autoloading system from the cold war being given some very generous estimates there.

 

do they have this off of testing data? i.e. did they test this off of a T58 with an autoloader installed or did they test the autoloading system separately and presume this would be the case? I am getting no data found on any firing tests, wikipedia only shows they suffered weight restrictions and the oscillating turret design standard set of issues.

 

 

Some of these arguments might be valid: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=128444

 

If WWII 75-88mm autoloaders already achieved design rates of 30-40rpm in short bursts (with up to a minute in between to reload ready racks), modern autoloaders with 120-155mm shells should be able to achieve 20-30rpm :dntknw: :yes_yes_yes:

 

More precisely:

 

75-88mm

  • Manual: 10-15rpm
  • Semi-automatic w/ ready rack: 15-20rpm
  • Fully automatic w/ ready rack: 30-40rpm

 

120-155mm

  • Manual: 5-10rpm
  • Semi-automatic w/ ready rack: 10-15rpm
  • Fully automatic: 20-30rpm
Edited by Results45
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2016 at 9:41 PM, Results45 said:

 

Some of these arguments might be valid: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=128444

 

If WWII 75-88mm autoloaders already achieved design rates of 30-40rpm in short bursts (with up to a minute in between to reload ready racks), modern autoloaders with 120-155mm shells should be able to achieve 20-30rpm :dntknw: :yes_yes_yes:

 

More precisely:

 

75-88mm

  • Manual: 10-15rpm
  • Semi-automatic w/ ready rack: 15-20rpm
  • Fully automatic w/ ready rack: 30-40rpm

 

120-155mm

  • Manual: 5-10rpm
  • Semi-automatic w/ ready rack: 10-15rpm
  • Fully automatic: 20-30rpm

 

looking at the forum you presented me, I do not see much in the way of objective data, battlefield data with cite-able sources, and what appears to be mostly speculation.

 

also looking at those RoFs... 2-3seconds of cycling is ludicrous for all intents and purposes. I am going to dismiss that as ideal or "burst RoF", given how practical RoF over time is far, far lower.

 

i.e. how the Type 94 rifle has a theoretical RoF of 1400rpm, even though that is an ideal RoF achieved by the first two rounds in "burst RoF", or the listed 73 eastings Abrams. Burst RoF is not only unsustainable but highly situational, their mechanics not applying and simply too many variables for ingame usage as of right now.

 

having said that, I am finding nothing on this supposed Abrams who knocked out 3 tanks in 7 seconds, given turret slewing rates, gunner aim times, and other factors, that number looks like pure fantasy.

 

someone presents in that thread how the M60 loader appears to load in 3-5 seconds, however this data is of course itself skewed due to the time between shells being loaded is not immediate; the gunner aims and pauses for a while before firing, which inherently changes the theoretical RoF (cannot be assumed that if the gunner fired every shell continuously that the loader would remotely match 5 seconds let alone 3, i.e. a 12-20 RPM RoF can reliably be dismissed in practice).

 

conversely, having taken a better look at even modern autoloading systems, while the RoF is impressive, I doubt the effective RoF would necessarily be superior to human loaders, once again.

 

with this in mind, as well as how RoF is typically calculated for WT, I seriously doubt that we will ever see a high calibre autoloading system with this sort of on-paper RoF.

 

they could of course fix this by adding in barrel overheat mechanics and other wear and tear mechanics, but I severely doubt this will ever truly take effect.

 

also with any lack of real data on the autoloading system for the T58, I think we would be lucky to see a RoF of 10rpm ingame, and I am not sure what sort of loading mechanism the T58 would have employed as well.

 

with this in mind, 10rpm is still spectacular given this is a 155mm gun mounted on an oscillating turret, the thought of this thing burst firing even 3 shells at the supposed burst RPM without causing severe overheat and turret problems is in itself a small miracle.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Optical_Ilyushin said:

 

looking at the forum you presented me, I do not see much in the way of objective data, battlefield data with cite-able sources, and what appears to be mostly speculation.

 

also looking at those RoFs... 2-3seconds of cycling is ludicrous for all intents and purposes. I am going to dismiss that as ideal or "burst RoF", given how practical RoF over time is far, far lower.

 

i.e. how the Type 94 rifle has a theoretical RoF of 1400rpm, even though that is an ideal RoF achieved by the first two rounds in "burst RoF", or the listed 73 eastings Abrams. Burst RoF is not only unsustainable but highly situational, their mechanics not applying and simply too many variables for ingame usage as of right now.

 

having said that, I am finding nothing on this supposed Abrams who knocked out 3 tanks in 7 seconds, given turret slewing rates, gunner aim times, and other factors, that number looks like pure fantasy.

 

someone presents in that thread how the M60 loader appears to load in 3-5 seconds, however this data is of course itself skewed due to the time between shells being loaded is not immediate; the gunner aims and pauses for a while before firing, which inherently changes the theoretical RoF (cannot be assumed that if the gunner fired every shell continuously that the loader would remotely match 5 seconds let alone 3, i.e. a 12-20 RPM RoF can reliably be dismissed in practice).

 

conversely, having taken a better look at even modern autoloading systems, while the RoF is impressive, I doubt the effective RoF would necessarily be superior to human loaders, once again.

 

with this in mind, as well as how RoF is typically calculated for WT, I seriously doubt that we will ever see a high calibre autoloading system with this sort of on-paper RoF.

 

they could of course fix this by adding in barrel overheat mechanics and other wear and tear mechanics, but I severely doubt this will ever truly take effect.

 

also with any lack of real data on the autoloading system for the T58, I think we would be lucky to see a RoF of 10rpm ingame, and I am not sure what sort of loading mechanism the T58 would have employed as well.

 

with this in mind, 10rpm is still spectacular given this is a 155mm gun mounted on an oscillating turret, the thought of this thing burst firing even 3 shells at the supposed burst RPM without causing severe overheat and turret problems is in itself a small miracle.

Autoloader on the T58

Image result for t-58 autoloader

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mercedes4321 said:

Autoloader on the T58

Image result for t-58 autoloader

 

 

any test firing data on the thing? 2 second cycle rates seem very generous, even if the mechanics would allow it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hatorihina said:

is this still stuff regarding to the Type 4/5?

We went rather OT, I will agree. As for the Type 4/5, I'm waiting for Mai to release a blog post on it. Ought to be rather interesting.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2016 at 2:03 PM, Optical_Ilyushin said:

 

 

2 hours ago, Optical_Ilyushin said:

any test firing data on the thing? 2 second cycle rates seem very generous, even if the mechanics would allow it.

 

 

I for one would be satisfied with the ability to switch between manual and semi-automatic ingame (the latter requiring up to 90 sec. for the gun to cool and to reload the ready-rack) given that full auto burst-firing would be unimaginably OP and would make gameplay even more unhistorical.

 

75mm (manual/semi-auto reload): 4 sec./3 sec.

 

88-125mm:  6 sec./4 sec.

 

155mm: 12 sec/6 sec.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Results45 said:

 

 

I for one would be satisfied with the ability to switch between manual and semi-automatic ingame (the latter requiring up to 90 sec. for the gun to cool and to reload the ready-rack) given that full auto burst-firing would be unimaginably OP and would make gameplay even more unhistorical.

 

75mm (manual/semi-auto reload): 4 sec./3 sec.

 

88-125mm:  6 sec./4 sec.

 

155mm: 12 sec/6 sec.

 

some vehicles you kinda wouldn't really be able to switch, the T58 system looks like a 6 round loader then you have to recharge the rack, so it would probably be rather difficult to develop a semi-auto system for this vehicle.

note when I mean generous even if mechanics allow it I mean even if the mechanism could theoretically manage 2 second cycle rates, I have my doubts this could ever be employed remotely to that degree.

 

and the average RoF would be much lower considering barrel overheats, the recoil effects probably also causing turret issues, and a general nightmare surrounding the design in general.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2016 at 2:03 PM, Optical_Ilyushin said:

 

 

On 12/19/2016 at 4:32 PM, Optical_Ilyushin said:

 

some vehicles you kinda wouldn't really be able to switch, the T58 system looks like a 6 round loader then you have to recharge the rack, so it would probably be rather difficult to develop a semi-auto system for this vehicle.

note when I mean generous even if mechanics allow it I mean even if the mechanism could theoretically manage 2 second cycle rates, I have my doubts this could ever be employed remotely to that degree.

 

and the average RoF would be much lower considering barrel overheats, the recoil effects probably also causing turret issues, and a general nightmare surrounding the design in general.

 

Start watching from 5:56 and you'll hear Nigel mention, "here's the Chi-Ri II: the first tank in game with an autoloader. 3 shots in 9 seconds? No Problem. You'll have to reload half a minute after that....."

In game, that equates to an average 6rpm, or 10 sec. reload (technically), but with a 3 sec. reload in rapid-fire mode, the theoretical constant rate of fire could be as high as 20rpm -- similar to that of the FlaK 88 field gun.

 

As for the T57/T110 & T58 (all of them no match against the Obj. 279's armor nor the maneuverability of the AMX-50), IMHO they would only stand a chance possessing fast 4-6 second semi-auto reloads.

 

Like the Chi-Ri II, after a certain number of rapid-reloaded rounds, there should be a 45-90 second wait to restock the ready-rack and a reduction in reload rate down to the manual 8-12 seconds when simulating wounded crew.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2016 at 2:03 PM, Optical_Ilyushin said:

 

 

Also found this: "addition, automatic-loading guns in larger calibres were built postwar. Naval weapons include the 76mm low-angle turreted gun fitted to the Norwegian Storm class patrol boats in the 1960s, which also equipped no fewer than 30 three-gun coastal artillery batteries in Sweden, then designated “7,5 cm KA-pjäs m/57”. It could fire a SAP shell with base bleed. The gun was also used in mobile coastal artillery batteries as the m/65. There was also the twin 120mm mounting fitted to the Halland class Swedish destroyers (among others - it was also used on no fewer than ten Dutch destroyers and two Colombian ones, built in Sweden) in the 1950s, and the impressive 120mm L/46 single-barrel mounting of the late 1960s which was originally developed as a land mounting (the m/61) but only saw naval service, fitted to a few Finnish and Indonesian ships. For the Swedish Army, Bofors produced the 155m Bandkanon self-propelled artillery piece in the 1960s (on the right).

This was a highly impressive piece of equipment which could empty its 14-round magazine in fully-automatic fire in 45 seconds. 26 were delivered to the Swedish Army. It was also extremely expensive, so the succeeding FH-77 equipment was more modest, although still capable of a fast three-round burst."

 

BoBand.jpg

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/Bofors.htm

Edited by Results45
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love to see some heavies in the normal tree, please great snail here my prayers. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2016 at 11:59 AM, Asakaze said:


Nope, it was built but only pictures you could find publicly is of the turret

 


latest?cb=20140919024858

latest?cb=20140919024933

 

One should not believe everything he can see on the net.

 

There's no proof of japanese ever finishing O-I let alone these things.

Edited by Shimapan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.