Some vehicles, such as those in the Central Readiness Regiment and International Activity Education Unit at Utsunomiya Garrison, which are units with frequent overseas deployments, are equipped with smoke grenade launchers. These vehicles have been deployed with additional protective plates on the upper body and wire cutters to protect the personnel leaning out of the vehicle, used in PKO (United Nations peacekeeping operations) and Iraq reconstruction support.
During overseas deployments, the LAVs were equipped with air conditioning, which received favorable reviews from foreign soldiers for providing a comfortable environment. Vehicles used in Iraq reconstruction support are also displayed at the entrance of the Ground Self-Defense Force Public Relations Center, Rikun Land. x.com
People need to do their research before make any statement about the GSDF, in this case saying how they never been anywhere outside of Japan.
The differences between the LAV deployed overseas and the one in Japan is the addition of the armored turret for protecting the machine gunner but the balistic spall liners (at least what appear to be) are installed on all LAVs.
It’s understandable if you have reservations about trusting the information, but asserting a categorical ‘No’ regarding the presence of spall liners in those tanks seems to be more rooted in presumptions than factual evidence.
Would not it be betterif you could share a source or reference that supports your statement. Even if it’s from Wikipedia, I don’t really care, as it allows me to cross-check the information by examining the sources cited in the article later on.
Btw did you know that there is a Chi-Ha with Chi-He turret perseved at Indiana Military History Museum in USA ?
I actually wanted to make a vehicle suggestion for this in the past but upon learning that the modification was done by the Americans after captured this tank, i felt it was not possible.
Eitherway the Type 1 Chi-He is partly still exist today. A turret is in the US and a hull is in Japan (Type 3 Chi-Nu).
how about giving the type 93 it’s realistic performance. it says that it can pen up to 414mm of armor at 2km. dunno how that translates to close ranges however. probably same or better than DM63 of TAM2C ingame?
No APFSDS shell in the game has historical penetration. All of them are nerfed down version of the real shells. Giving Type 93 its historical pen means every single APFSDS will have to go through the same buff included the DM63. It is not like if Type 93 recieved historical pen but DM63 remain unchanged except it would also have even higher pen than it is currently.
I’m pretty sure it is done intentionally to prevent the top tier from being completely broken than it already is.
Very great picture!
SS-3 is actually been suggested in the past but it have not been passed for consideration. If noone wants to at least modify the old suggestion and creat a new suggestion on the new forum then it will dissapear forever because unfortunately i believe @Tasty95215 is no longer around in the community…
Before he's gone he also made suggestions for all other SS prototypes aswell. None of which had been passed yet.
I realised that something’s off when I saw the mantlet damage model doesn’t match the visual model. Btw the tank got renamed to stb-2? Is that correct??
Both the STB-1 and STB-2 both had a semi autoloader IRL. The difference is the RWS and some of the lifting lugs. Based on the model in game we have the STB-2
i don’t mind if the US players want it but i think gaijin doesn’t accept vehicle modified for museum otherwise they would have changed the Panther II to equip with a Panther G turret.
