The thing is, I don’t think there are any photos of that modified return roller layout, this might just be a mistake on the author’s part
1 Like
Japanese ground tech tree is officially screwed this update, even in datamine only Japanese ground is not mentioned, but everyone else got new leaked ground vehicles, ooof.
9 Likes
they might still have stuff more internally. AAM-3 came out of no where when there was no indication it was being worked on.
Lets hope, but it is gajin we are talking here so I seriously doubt anything other will come for japan.
2 Likes
I feel like that is what we are basically getting, 1 maybe + 3 ships and botes, AAM-3 for air and 70 euro Type 90 for ground.
But surely there got to be more stuff for air and ground trees, surely.
5 Likes
Isuzu Type 94 SPAA fuel tank issue fixed within two weeks of reporting. )))
I found a second source for Ta-Se SPAA’s 20 mm Ho-Ki II cannon. Reported.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/sZuBsa1hmwVP
6 Likes
True, but the AAM-3 was in the dev streams and not something that was put in after. I think we’ve seen all that we’ll see for Japan this update, unless they give us the ARH missile for Type 81(c) or maybe even a Thai Alpha Jet.
Though one of the leakers did mention a top tier jet for Japan but maybe that’s next update or we’ll see next week when dev server gets updated again.
1 Like
Back in June 17th of 2017 lol I thought I lost the images but turns out I had them posted in Amino App for War Thunder Group. The year when we were lacking so much and introduction of the 1st T-64 and MBT-70s.
3 Likes
Type 74 when they realized the evaluation support unit camouflage will only be available for the premium Type 90 (they are depressed)
11 Likes
The first image is of the Ke-Ni A Prototype. Notice how the wheels, superstructure, and turret are different. As far as I can tell, the Ke-To had a different suspension layout.
4 Likes
The Merkava Mk.3 Raam Segol is an experimental version of the Israeli Army’s Merkava Mk.3 main battle tank, featuring the Raam Segol. In real life, this system automatically turns the tank’s turret in the direction of the laser and releases smoke grenades automatically. However in game, we’ll not be implementing this functionality as in many instances, it would interfere with the player’s control mid-combat.
Reminds me of the laser warning receiver device found on Type 74G, Type 87 AW, Type 89, and Type 90, which has the exact same functionality as the one described above.
The laser detection device of the Type 90 tank has three optical windows and can detect laser irradiation from approximately 180 degrees in front of the turret. Additionally, on each side of the turret, there are four 76mm smoke grenade launchers, totaling eight, which can deploy smoke screens instantly in front of the vehicle in coordination with the laser detection device. The smoke grenades, mainly composed of red phosphorus, are produced under license by the Swedish company FFV and are used in this system.
They claimed that it could disrupt player control, and while that may be true, why not make it possible to disable it with a simple button press or selection from the multi-function wheel, similar to how the Active Protection System (APS) can be toggled on and off? lol ?
Since we are one of the few without APS, this little thing can act like one in the form of a protection system.
4 Likes
They could have at least added an incoming ATGM warning, as basically every APS tells you if an ATGM is incoming. This could also be applied to other vehicles with poorly added protection systems, like the PUMA, Raam Segol, etc.
2 Likes
MAWS would be a nice addition to vehicles that have them, Type 10, 16, PUMA ect since we already have it in game on helis. Dunno how trophy’s one works tho, as it’s radar not visual
Some pictures of the Type 90 from the armored training regiment, 3rd company.
Yes, they don’t have stripes painted on them. Also two stripes mean 2nd company, Type 90 fuji is 3rd company ? Good job, Gaijin lol
6 Likes
Additional information.
Type 2 Ke-To was built in 34 units at Kobe Steel ,Ltd.
This is Kobe Steel’s Nadahama Plant around February 1946, after the end of World War II. The Kobe Shimbun newspaper at the time photographed an abandoned tank factory and proposed converting the abandoned tanks into bulldozers and other equipment.
The quality of the photo is very poor, but you can see the side of the Type 2 Ke-To in the center back. It looks like there is a third return roller.
According to the list of unfinished weapons that the Japanese Army submitted to the Allied Forces, Kobe Steel had 28 unfinished Ke-Nu tanks, which had modified turrets from Type 2 Ke-To. In addition, they were working on converting the Type 95 Ha-Go into a self-propelled gun or modifying its turret. This project was called Ke-Ru, and they completed seven units, with 15 still unfinished. The tank on the left side of the photo appears to be a Ke-Ru with a Type 97/57 Chi-Ha turret attached to a Type 95 Ha-Go hull.
7 Likes
Thanks for your information. That photo is quite interesting to me, as it points out some misconceptions regarding the Ke-Nu. According to Wikipedia, the Ke-Nu “was a conversion of existing Type 95 Ha-Go light tanks, re-fitted with the larger turret of the Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank.”. However, this old-forum post talks about the confusion regarding the Ke-Nu and Ke-Ru, that the former was actually a Ke-To modification.
Confusion regarding the “Type 3 Ke-Ri”, “Type 4 Ke-Nu”, and “Type 3 Ke-Ru” - General & Upcoming - War Thunder - Official Forum
But I think I may be partially correct (or at least on the right track) about the return roller information. Originally, I assumed Wikipedia to be totally wrong (it has been before tbf), and that the Ke-To was actually what we see below.
However, there are so many websites that say the below is the Type 2 Ke-To, that I wanted to be sure.
But I think the above tank is actually a combination of the Type 98 Ke-Ni A Production chassis
chassis, with a Type 2 Ke-To turret.
We know for sure what the turret of the Ke-To looked like, as we have surviving examples of the Ka-Mi, which borrowed the Ke-To’s turret (if it was modified extensively, someone let me know). Additionally, we know that in comparison to its Ke-Ni predecessor, the Ke-To’s turret was enlarged.
And I think the chassis is from the Type 98 Ke-Ni because of these images I have from a tank driving manual:
Notice how the suspension has been moved inside the vehicle. In both above images, you cannot see any part of the famous bell-crank suspension. And now, finally, here is an image of the Type 4 work vehicle, which was converted from the Ke-To:
It has only two return rollers.
So, in summary, here are my theories:
- Ke-To refers to a single type of vehicle with only two return rollers.
- Ke-To refers to a series of light tanks that began with the combination of an enlarged turret a Ke-Ni chassis, ending with this vehicle:
- Or I’m totally wrong about everything, and the Type 4 work vehicle chassis was modified specifically for that variant, and has nothing to do with the original Ke-To.
6 Likes
Made an entire post about the Zerstörer 45 yet Gaijin fucked it up some how
Plus there was a suggestion on the old forums about it passed consideration in 2014
1 Like
Typical Japan’s L.
It is not considered an error. Since there are no restrictions on movement at the lowest suspension position in the game, such a suspension position could cause shaking and trembling of the tank’s chassis. Therefore, the angles were limited. The current angles satisfy us. A similar issue is currently observed with the Type 10, and a fix is also planned for it.
Why bother fixing it if we can just solve the problem by nerfing it…
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/m6dxpbWA4I1m
For real though, who is even complaining about tank shaking ? Beside, who uses lowest suspension posture ? The only useful position is leaning forward during hulldown which as far as i know had no problem with the hull shaking included the Type 10.
Limiting its angles meaning the tank loses at least -2 or -3 degree of gun depression if not more.
7 Likes
I remember seeing that bug report when bringing up the two year old type 10 suspension bug to a friend. The fix they have planned is likely going to limit angles