Smin1080p

[Datasheet] Type 90 Historical References

Type90_S1_42a39c8f8d5b2ce3009e09f6b0faa3

We would like to introduce the Type 90 Q&A made in cooperation with DMM, our Japanese distribution partners. Many thanks DMM for their assistance and co-ordination with this article as well as members of the Japanese community for their input.

 

Q. For the JM12A1 shell, shouldn't it be HEAT-MP instead of HEATFS?

 

DMM Comment: The exhibited photo on the JGSDF Public Information Center 「りっくんランド」:

120㎜TKG対戦車りゅう弾

120mm TKG high-explosive anti-tank

d61e44a02ae7a58f226652462434f1e1.jpg

 

 

  • In game, the type of projectile designates its naming convention. The acronym HEAT-MP simply means the multipurpose designation of the projectile (since initially 120mm guns did not have high-explosive ammunition and had to utilise HEAT ammunition as their replacement). Structurally HEAT-MP and HEATFS designate the same type of ammunition - HEAT stabilized fins. Therefore, everything is correct in the game.

 

Q. Thank you for implementing the Type 90 to the game. For the engine sound, the current Type 90 engine sound is a lot more realistic to the general engine sounds used by other vehicles, however it still sounds different compared to the real Type 90. I know it could be difficult to improve this but if possible, I would like you to further improve the engine sound.  (If possible, it would be great if you could improve the engine sounds for not just Type 90, but STB, Type 74 and Type 87 as well.)

 

DMM Comment: We will be recording the actual engine sound from Hokkaido SDF's base between July 17th and 18th.

 

  • When we are able to obtain high quality audio recordings of this vehicle, we will of course work on implementing this into the game.

 

Q. The in-game hydraulic suspension inclination angle for Type 90 is very different compared to the real vehicle, why?

 

DMM Comment: As described in attached document [Type 90 formula outline D9003B] No.4 main specification ‘(4) the lowest ground height (standard attitude ± variable degrees) ’ the vehicle can only control the hull within ±5degrees attitude control of +170mm~ -255mm to the front and back.


▼Video reference:「JGSDF Type 90 attitude control drill」

 

  • This will be corrected.

 

Q. Shouldn't Type 90 have 4 forward gears and 2 reverse gears?

 

DMM Comment: MT1500 is a gear steering system developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Group, where 3 functions gearing, steering and brake are merge into 1 device. The dimension of MT 1500, length 1094mm, width 1460, height 1065mm and a dry weight of 1,940kg. MT1500 gear formula is build with torque converter and planetary gear mechanism, an auto-control electro-hydraulic system with 4 gears forward and 2 gears backward.

Magazine “SAT magazine”_「Post-war Japanese tank 」_2009 September vol.

P.123 Chapter 7 type 90’s mechanism

 

  • The currently increased number of gears at the moment simulates the operation of the torque converter and is a game convention. Until a more detailed emulation of such transmissions is created, this is working as intended.

 

Q.Why is it that in X-ray mode, machinery related items are not displayed inside the vehicle's layout? (I believe all the machinery parts have some kind of defense power as well.)

 

  • Equipment currently provides protection only against small fragments that impact them in the damage model.

 

Q.The driver of the Type 90 is lying down rather than sitting up straight. As we can seen from Youtube, the driver for Type 90 is different to the driver in an M1, he is sitting in a upright position. Do you have any plan to change this? (This mean the composite armour position might be different as well. The ammunition located at the front section of the vehicle might not be protected by the composite armour.)

 

DMM Comment: Japanese Type 90 tank (03:56~/09:33~)

 

 

  • The position of the crew shows the approximate placement. In addition, in the game, the crew members do not change their body position, so their appearance in x-ray form cannot be shown in all possible variables.

 

Q.Thank you so much for implementing the Type 90 in this update, I want to show my appreciation to both Gaijin Entertainment and DMM. Regards to the Type 90 in this update, by referring to the documentation related to the type 90 Development ballistic test experiment (provided by DMM as well), the turret and frontal armour is very different to the actual tank. I believe Gaijin Entertainment is aware of this from the forum as well, what kind of standards do you base on when configuring the armour settings?

 

DMM Comment: Within『世界のハイパワー戦車&新技術』(Japan Military Review『軍事研究』2007/December Issue separate volume, it is stated that Ballistic tests conducted on a Type 90 frontal armour by using the main gun from another Type 90, (distance approximately around 250m), after which, the Type 90 being hit could stil function and move normally. There were 4 shell impacts on the frontal composite armour (judging by the traces, there were 3 HEAT-MP and 1 APFSDS shots), it could be confirmed that there was at least 1 shell impact on the turret front right section (according to the impact, the shell is assumed to be APFSDS), basing on the results, it is believed that the turret holds the same defense ability as the hull. '(The same information was provided by DMM as well)

 

The penetration power of JM 33 is more than 500mm, for JM12A1 is more than 600mm. Which means the composite armour value of the Type 90 composite armour should have 500mm or above for KE (kinetic energy) shell, 600mm or above armour value for CE (chemical energy) shell.

 

  • Firstly, much of the test information given is from a secondary, scientifically popular, source and can contain many inaccuracies and errors. Secondly, indicating the distance the shell travels is meaningless without specifying the impact speed. Most ballistic tests of tanks are conducted at a relatively short distance from the armour under test. The required penetration of the projectile is achieved by the selection of type of charge in the powder, which makes it possible to model any desired firing distance. Therefore, the assertion that the tank sustained a impact from 250m without an accurate indication of the  impact speed could mean any equivalent durability. For example, in a game, the tank can withstand the impact of its own armour-piercing projectile, JM-33, from a distance of about 3000m. That does not contradict these statements. For the HEAT  projectile, the range and impact speed do not matter, but in the game, the durability of the frontal turret armour is about 600 mm. It is also necessary to understand that during real impacts, armoured resistance is never limited to one shot, as this can not be a representative sample.

 

For comparison - the turret of the T-90, as we see only in the right turret cheek, 3 shots were produced by subcalibre projectiles.

For comparison - the turret of the T-90, as we see only in the right turret cheek, 3 shots were produced by subcalibre projectiles.

 

A simulated M1A2 turret during the tests of the Swedish tender, 2 hits by sub-calibre and 2 HEAT munitions.

A simulated M1A2 turret during the tests of the Swedish tender, 2 hits by sub-calibre and 2 HEAT munitions.

 

Tests of the T-72M1 turret in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Tests of the T-72M1 turret in the Federal Republic of Germany.

 


 

Q.I have a question on why the MOD would adopt a tank which the [mantlet] can be penetrated by vehicles from WWII.

 

  • Any tank is a set of compromises for which designers and customers are limited to based on existing restrictions - mass, dimensional limitations, financial, production, etc. In the design of the armour protection of all modern tanks, there are "ballistic windows" that can not be eliminated by using the classic layout of tanks. For all modern tanks, the gun mask or mantlet zone is a vulnerable area. And yes, on many of them it could be pierced by powerful ammunition from the Second World War period. Therefore, the size of the embrasure and accordingly, the mantlets, try to reduce or completely abandon it and make the turret difficult to penetrate (Chieftain, Challenger). However the area around the gun is not resistant to the equivalent resistance of the maximum protection zones. In the case of gun masks of a large area, such as the Leopard 2 and Type-90, it is impossible to have a large amount of armour on it because of the difficulties encountered with the stabilization of the gun if an armour element of large thickness and density is mounted on it.

 

An example of assessing the durability of the Soviet tank turret (Soviet analysts) is that only unshaded zones provide maximum protection and do not penetrate with their own 125mm shells, all other zones have a reduced resistance. For example, on the right is an example of a baseless configuration of a prospective tank, in which the number of vulnerable areas is much smaller.

4_cfeb8d6f96aa39bd52640e08359ed0b6.jpg

 


 

Q.For composite armour, normally it could be observed and estimated according to the welding traces on top of the turret, but it is totally different right now. Do you have plan in fixing this in future updates? It is widely known that the composite armour is located on the sides of the turret frontal section, and at the bottom part of the vehicle.

 

DMM Comment:  ▼F-Ryo @Fryo19991218

 

▼General AFV Thread

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/652-general-afv-thread/?page=104

 

fPKTbzut2EQ4k7yol76mLTzD8Qln_D6GMcZPWGmz

 

  • We consider this scheme to be incorrect based on an analysis of available tank photos from inside and outside. The following images agree with the scheme and location of the combined armour shown here. One of the photos confirming our point of view.

As can be seen on the left turret cheek, the placement of the combined armor as noted on the diagram from the magazine is impossible as there is no place for it.

As can be seen on the left turret cheek, the placement of the combined armor as noted on the diagram from the magazine is impossible as there is no place for it.

Additionally, we do not exclude the possibility of changes in the tank initial model in situations where new documents or measurements from real vehicles are presented.

Additionally, we do not exclude the possibility of changes in the tank initial model in situations where new documents or measurements from real vehicles are presented.


 

Q. What materials do you base on when configuring the Type 90s armour? Please reveal the reference sources.

 

  • Materials in the armour protection of modern tanks, especially Japanese ones, are one of the most classified topics of modern weapons and we do not currently have official documents of this kind. The protection of the tank was reconstructed on the basis of photo analysis, secondary (scientific popular magazines and monographs) sources, as well as available documentary assessments of the protection of other similar tanks, such as the recent Swedish presentation Stridsfordon_idag_och_imorgon, which first published estimates of the resistance of the Leopard 2A4 tank during the Swedish tender.

The War Thunder Team

 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 11
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 7
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great job on this, Smin and co!

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Type90BestGirl said:

basically

 

Which is essentially what it is.


On a side note, the trunnion is still too thin on both Type 90 and leo 2, it's 50mm on the 2A4 while it should be 240mm, I'm pretty sure it's the same case for the Type 90.

@Smin1080p

 

Edited by scavenjer
  • Confused 3
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing that you are taking the effort of doing this. First Challenger I, now Type 90... it's great that you show your players how you have done this things, it makes a lot of things clear!

 

However i still have serious doubts about the mantlet area, specially on the Leopard 2A4... what is the source that states that the RH L/44 120mm gun's trunnion is a 50mm thick hollow piece? Because even if the explaination provided here makes sense, it doesn't show any source or document...

 

I have been in a military base (El Goloso, Madrid), inside Leopard 2 tanks where their crews explained to me how they worked, how they were operated and how they were. And, amongst many things, they told me that the mantlet area was precisely the most protected one in the whole tank because of the summation of the mantlet piece itself and the gun trunnion behind it. Does this mean that the tankers don't know how their tanks really are?

 

IMG_2164.JPG

 

The sponson armour in Leopard 2A4 has already been reported and been proven to be wrong, but it still hasn't been fixed... (it should be 12+30mm of spaced armor instead of the current 10mm ingame, as pictures and documents have already prooven)

Edited by SPANISH_AVENGER
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 6
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be pointed out that this image 

Spoiler

6_2db5bcaca44bf0f620956e04229da835.jpg

Is from one of the pre-production tanks, (the last version IIRC, but nevertheless different). The other information seems to make sense, but this picture doesn't prove anything. The rougher welds and the bars on the matlet show this.

Another shot of the same prototype, notice the lack of blowout panels, the different smoke launchers compared to the one in game, the different sights, ect.
 

Spoiler

JGSDF_MBT_Type_90_at_JGSDF_PI_center_3.j

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 13
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the reason for the ammo of the Type 90 being so much stronger than the ammo of the M1 Abrams or Leopard 2A4? The guns on all 3 tanks are almost the same.

  • Haha 5
  • Confused 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, CotorShas said:

It should be pointed out that this image 

  Reveal hidden contents

6_2db5bcaca44bf0f620956e04229da835.jpg

Is from one of the pre-production tanks, (the last version IIRC, but nevertheless different). The other information seems to make sense, but this picture doesn't prove anything. The rougher welds and the bars on the matlet show this.

Another shot of the same prototype, notice the lack of blowout panels, the different smoke launchers compared to the one in game, the different sights, ect.
 

  Reveal hidden contents

JGSDF_MBT_Type_90_at_JGSDF_PI_center_3.j

 

BTW this was reported during DEV server... :facepalm:

 

  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Shardur said:

What is the reason for the ammo of the Type 90 being so much stronger than the ammo of the M1 Abrams or Leopard 2A4? The guns on all 3 tanks are almost the same.

What? Only Type 90 and Leo 2A4 use the "same" 120mm cannon oddly with different ammunition but the M1 uses 105mm.

Edited by Vuko
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One very important thing about the last picture where you show the size of the composite. THIS is NOT the tank we have in the game, its one of the prototypes that stands at the JGSDF public information center and doesn`t share the same composite layout as the production vehicle.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Shardur said:

What is the reason for the ammo of the Type 90 being so much stronger than the ammo of the M1 Abrams or Leopard 2A4? The guns on all 3 tanks are almost the same.

Only the 2A4 and Type 90 use the same gun, the M1 uses the US version of the L7. But Type 90 gets JM-33 (licensed DM-33) because that's the least powerful round it's ever fired. It came out the door with JM-33 and JM-12A1. Leo2a4 has shot those earlier rounds like DM-13 and DM-23. It leads to the Type 90 being very strong but the small player base, lack of armour (not that it doesn't have any, just less), and lack of viable backups sort of balances it out.

  • Confused 4
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ori93 said:

One very important thing about the last picture where you show the size of the composite. THIS is NOT the tank we have in the game, its one of the prototypes that stands at the JGSDF public information center and doesn`t share the same composite layout as the production vehicle.

Source? if you have a valid source, use it.

7 minutes ago, CotorShas said:

Only the 2A4 and Type 90 use the same gun, the M1 uses the US version of the L7. But Type 90 gets JM-33 (licensed DM-33) because that's the least powerful round it's ever fired. It came out the door with JM-33 and JM-12A1. Leo2a4 has shot those earlier rounds like DM-13 and DM-23. It leads to the Type 90 being very strong but the small player base, lack of armour (not that it doesn't have any, just less), and lack of viable backups sort of balances it out.

Leopard 2A4 never fired DM13 outside of being used as practice ammunition designed DM38A2.

The 2A4 we have is from '91-'92, by which point DM33 was the only APFSDS round it carried, DM23 again being relegated as practice ammunition in the form of DM38A4.

 

The fact both of these tanks use HEATFS as stock is a joke and completely ridiculous, meanwhile all russian top tier tanks with the exception of the T-55A use APFSDS as stock....

Edited by scavenjer
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Source? if you have a valid source, use it.

As I posted before 

Quote

JGSDF_MBT_Type_90_at_JGSDF_PI_center_3.j

Notice the lack of blowouts, the different smoke launchers, the different welds, the different sights, the lack of cloth covering on the gun. The bars on top of the mantlet that are not found on the production vehicles, the unfinished surfaces. 

 

Spoiler

JGSDF_MBT_Type_90_at_JGSDF_PI_center_2.j

Mantlet is different and I don't know what the xxxx is going on with that gunner's sight, it doesn't even look real. What appears to be a refueling hatch in the front of the tank that is missing on the production model, the small plates that are missing on the production model. The rougher welds, the weld of the storage boxes onto the mudskirt is literally 4 blops instead of an actual weld. Whatever that little thing on the right mudskirt storage box is on the other side in the production. And the laser warning system is missing.

Edited by CotorShas
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Which is essentially what it is.


On a side note, the trunnion is still too thin on both Type 90 and leo 2, it's 50mm on the 2A4 while it should be 240mm, I'm pretty sure it's the same case for the Type 90.

@Smin1080p

 

Can I see your source for the Type 90 using the Leopard 2A4s armour?

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CotorShas 
Doesn't say anything about composite though, only that it's a prototype/unfinished tank.

1 minute ago, Type90BestGirl said:

Can I see your source for the Type 90 using the Leopard 2A4s armour?

It uses a very similar armour design as evidenced by the vertical armour faces and the fact that they were talking to German engineers at the time to design the Type 90.

If we compare LOS values of both and assume the Type 90 uses C tech armour or a similarly effective design, it pretty much is spot on the same as you see in-game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scavenjer said:

@CotorShas 
Doesn't say anything about composite though, only that it's a prototype/unfinished tank.

No, but their source for the composite not going back as far *is* the prototype, thus is not a valid reasoning.Considering their reasoning is "the cloth ends here and turret roof begins here" when the cloth on the Type 90 production begins much further back. It's not proof that it does go back that far, just disproving their argument against it not going back that far.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CotorShas said:

No, but their source for the composite not going back as far *is* the prototype, thus is not a valid reasoning.Considering their reasoning is "the cloth ends here and turret roof begins here" when the cloth on the Type 90 production begins much further back. It's not proof that it does go back that far, just disproving their argument against it not going back that far.

Then I suggest you use pictures and such to clearly show what you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, scavenjer said:

Then I suggest you use pictures and such to clearly show what you mean.

How do you mean, I showed you a picture of the prototype that they are using for proof, and explained every detail that I could see in about 3 seconds that was different from a production variants. I assume you have the ability to go on google images and search "type 90 tank" to confirm.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.