General Japanese & Thai Ground Forces Discussion HQ

A topic to gather all information on the Japanese and Thai combat vehicles so if you feel like you want to share with the community what you found you can post them here! Thank you !

In this thread you may:

-Post unique/ rare/ unseen photographs related to Japanese and Thai armored vehicles.

-Post documents/ books/ magazines and/ or blueprints related to Japanese and Thai armored vehicles.

-Feel free to share your knowledge regarding Japanese and Thai armored vehicle.

-If you think you find a bug that is not historically correct for example vehicle’s model, RoF, armor thickness, mobility, ammunition, armament etc and you are uncertain about it, ask us for help !

-Basically, you can post anythig that is related to the Japanese and Thai ground forces !

15 Likes

Need help ! I wanted to know if there is anybody that is aware of these bugs on the Chi-Ri ever been reported before.

Missing viewport on left side.

Lower buffer tube should be removed.

I also wanted to know if my bug reports on the Chi-Ri i made in 2019 need to be remade because this is on the old forum which had been abandoned.

8 Likes


1990 Self-Defense Forces Review Ceremony

At the official inspection ceremony in 1990, the Type 90 tank was displayed. Although it did not appear at the viewing ceremony, it was displayed at the equipment display after the ceremony. This Type 90 tank is equipped with a dozer blade on the front of the vehicle body, allowing it to dig a bunker or a trench to hide the vehicle body.

Similarly, the Type 89 armored fighting vehicle, which was formalized the previous year, did not appear at the viewing ceremony. Like the Type 90 tank, this vehicle is also equipped with equipment to attach a dozer and mine disposal roller to the front of the vehicle body.

[These are prototypes not production vehicles!]
https://twitter.com/NAMELESS_JSDF/status/1683434331774103553/photo/1

4 Likes

If I was to make a bug report for the type 10, arguing that gaijin uses the max speed of a turret traverse using the leopard as an example, would that result in a buff or just a nerf to the leopard

4 Likes

Shisei Anti Aircraft Truck
Using the Type-88 75mm though a Type-14 105mm Anti Air gun as a different vehicle would also be cool.

As well as the Ki-To Anti Air Tank, the sparse TA-HA SPAA using 2 Flak 3.7cm AA guns which one prototype is claimed to be built but no photographic evidence exist meaning its down to Gaijin’s interpretation for what it may look like.
image

2 Likes

The live firing test video of trial 7.5cm SPAA is recently uploaded to Youtube.

7 Likes

I think as long as they’ve been accepted you don’t need to remake them, but you can always ask a tech mod on the progress. Btw thanks for making all of the bug reports, you’ve granted a lot of changes to Japanese vehicles

3 Likes

Thanks, i hope that is the case.
I found out that apparently someone else was trying to remake of my bug report on the new bug report site but it hasn’t been accepted by the mod for over a year, i guess it is because the report had been already accepted in the past.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/nWGonh30O2pH

1 Like

Treasure! This is a really great fine.
It immediately reminded me of the recent battle pass Breda 90/53 .

Is this vehicle ever been suggested before ? i don’t remember ever seeing it but we need this 7.5cm carrier.
Thank you so much for sharing this!

Any word on Type 89’s ATGMs being made useable? I’m loving the vehicle, but the ATGMs might as well not be mounted if you aren’t on a desert map. If there’s an object within 50m of me those missiles seem guaranteed to spiral into it after launch.

1 Like

No need, tanuki10 already made a bug report on it 7 months ago.
It was first labeled as not a bug then changed to acknowledge, so maybe there is still a hope that it might get buffed in the future.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/xnXj771yQijx

Does it only affect the Type 79 ATGM ? Or does this bug affected other ATGMs aswell ?
If that is the case then the missile mechanic might need to get fixed in general.

But this had been bug reported, but no moderator takes a look at it despite 13 people voted for having this same issue.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/7YixLg7uPRFx

Btw, guys, please consider supporting my bug report to get the Ho-Ri missing auto-loader here, thank you :> !

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/1OCRvSCHpvf0

5 Likes

All ATGMs had their guidance changed within the last year. The 89’s is the only one I’ve seen or heard about having the weird spiraling problem.

1 Like

Ive seen that bug report, but its marked as not a bug, because of them saying they use gunner speeds instead of max speed.

never mind i missunderstood, they actually removed the acknowledge rather than adding it, oh well…

But yeah if a video source doesn’t work, i don’t know if using Leopard 2 to bug report a Type 10 will.

I was going to use that one chart that says leopard gunner traverse speed is 30 while max speed is 40, and use that to say they use max speed and not gunner speed

1 Like

You could try, the community will surely support it.

I don’t think they will nerf the Leo as a result unless they wanted a second backlash from the NATO mains. Afterall not only Germany using Leopard 2 now.

1 Like

now i just need to refind that one chart, then find the Japanese documents.
do you have them available?

Is not the Type 10 chart already uploaded on the previous bug report attempt ? I think you might get more info if you ask @tanuki10 . (He might be asleep right now)