oh fair my mistake
It seems that you may have been confused due to the ambiguous naming surrounding the Chi-Ri. Let me explain in detail.
Chi-Ri Plan I: Proposed on September 23, 1943. This was one of the early Chi-Ri design proposals. It was rejected after the second detailed technical conference. At least, it had been rejected before the subsequent suspension system review conference.
Chi-Ri (Chi-Ri Plan II): Also proposed on September 23, 1943. This was the design that was accepted. One unit was completed on March 1945. Mass production plans were later cancelled on March 31, 1945.
Chi-Ri II: Proposed in mid-to-late 1944. It featured a 500-hp air-cooled diesel engine, removal of the 37mm gun, and a shorter length of 6.5 meters. While discussions were held regarding its production, it was never approved before the end of the war. It was likely cancelled before March 31, 1945.
To summarize, the Japanese army never even attempted to build Chi-Ri Plan I. It was simply one of several “options” proposed by engineers during the early design phase. Some peoples, including Gaijin, have overemphasized this proposal and mistakenly referred to the actual Chi-Ri as “Chi-Ri II.” In reality, the tank that was built was never called “Chi-Ri II”—it was simply called Chi-Ri. As @skultew1234 mentioned, this has been corrected in a recent update.
Regarding the two photos you shared: the first photo was taken when tanks were being gathered at Tokyo 1st Arsenal to be transported to the US after the war. The second was taken at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in the US in 1952. Both are postwar photos taken by Americans, and importantly, US military reports clearly state that only one Chi-Ri was ever built. Therefore, the two photos are of the same vehicle (both Chi-Ri Plan II).
While the Zerstörer 45 and Ostwind II at least tried to build a prototype, Chi-Ri Plan I was never even attempted and never truly existed. Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s any chance of Chi-Ri Plan I being added to the game.
The turret of Chi-Ri Plan I later influenced the design of the Type 3 Chi-Nu. This turret design was also used in Chi-To Late and the Chi-Ri II, so it’s natural that they look similar. If you’re confused between the two, look at the front of the hull. The Chi-To has no hatches for the driver and the machine gunner at the front hull, while the Chi-Ri II does.
12 Likes
Does anyone know what is the purpose of this rotor mast? Is it maybe a LWS, or is it just a tip for the rotor shaft that does nothing?
Cuz if it did have a purpose, it would be great to have THIS as the Japanese premium heli, just like other nations get a strong premium helicopter, while Japan only gets a reskin AH-1S at 9.7 (which tbh should had only been added as a camo for the TT AH-1S)
just a blanking/cover plate. You see it on other Apaches post Longbow which don’t equip radar or a comms mast. iirc when a LWS id installed onto the apaches it’s attached to the wing tips
I see. I still believe it would be a much better choice for a japanese premium heli.
Will Japan ever get a new top tier spaa if 81c goes up to 11.7😱
1 Like
wrong channel.
My bad, apologies, was browsing through here looking at the Chi Ri discussion and forgot to change to BR discussion.
1 Like
Why does the AH-1S Kisarazu have a CM dispenser? I searched through the internet and couldn’t find a single picture where the heli has those.
Balance? They did it with the F5C and the F15A, as long as another nations version had it, you can argue for it to be added. Whether its added is up to gaijin.
The TT AH-1S doesn’t get countermeasures tho. I feel like Gaijin just added it to make it at least somehow slightly different from the TT version. That’s just plain cheating lol. The Kisarazu version should’ve really just been just a camo for the TT one.
I will make a suggestion for a new jap premium heli, the AH-64DJP without the radar mast. I believe it would be much healthier for the japanese tree, as most other nations get a top tier premium heli as well. If anyone tries to tell me it would be too similar to the TT AH-64, then please - look at Israel, their premium heli is THE EXACT SAME as one of the TT.
Edit: the Israeli premium has 30x CMs, TT has 60x CMs. What a mindblowing difference.
2 Likes
What can we expect from the Thai T-84?
How will it fare compared to the chinese and russian top tier MBTs?
1 Like
Depends on how Gaijin adds the ERA on that thing. If similar to the APFSDS stopping Russian ERA, then it would be very similar to top tier T-80s.
1 Like
Without big talk around how its armor is configured etc; you can bascially expect a T-90A with T-80B mobility and (at least what we assume they use) chinese APFSDS.
3 Likes
Better mobility then the t80 as it has an actual reverse gear
2 Likes
I’d say it would be T-90M with T-80B mobility and actually good reverse speed. But yeah, if provided with chinese ammo it would be a T-80BVM sidegrade
2 Likes
And there goes Japan 11.3 lineup if the br changes happen like this.
Why would the type81 go up again? Its missiles are good, but only if you manage to launch then, and i dont know if they changed something but they have been missing and loosing lock more resently
No radar, only 4 ready missiles that need to search and lock first so response time its slower to intercept stuff
Already writting the feedback on the proper topic but dang, dont know what are they thinking
1 Like
Not to mention basically zero missile-interceptability.
1 Like
I would rather keep the Type 81 (C) at 11.0, add Type 11 at 12.0 and once better SAM is necessary we still have Thailand’s VL MICA and Singapore’s SPYDER-SR as future options (considering we get more ASEAN Founders Nations as Sub-Nations and multi vehicle systems).
Beyond that, there are only Type 03 Chu-SAM (Kai), Partiot, FK-3 (Thailand) and ASTER 30 (Singapore).
8 Likes
Also putting the TKX p at 11.7 where theres nothing else doesnt makes sence, at that pont either leave it where it is or just give it the Type10 round and put it at 12.0