Thanks for the info.
Sounds like a bug report to me; I submitted one for the Ke-Ni to be renamed as “Type 98 Ke-Ni A Prototype”. If you don’t want to do it yourself, you could give me the materials and I can do it.
Okay that could actually be a really net vehicle to add and would add some variety as an actually useful pure ATGM vehicle. Someone wanna make a suggestion for it?
so whats going on with the Type 10’s driver and mashing his face into the viewport?
I can see that the TKX driver doesn’t do that and doesnt become a single piece with other armor plates as well
Interesting, maybe its worth making a bug report about. I have noticed that the Type 90 A & B seem to also mash the drivers face into the view ports.
TKX (P) seems to be uneffected like the normal TKX
1 Like
cuz the damage model was based of the devs dreams, wich also made me remember the driver should be lower than what it is
2 Likes
Seems like its also offset quite a bit.
badly done meme (in paint btw)
1 Like
That is because the location of the driver’s periscopes located differently between the two tanks.
The TK-X periscopes located further out while the Type 10 periscopes are placed further in close to its turret ring. So yeah, the driver sits in the exact same location.
Not exactly sure what you meant by this.
Are there text mentions about the inner wall between the front (driver’s area and 47mm turrets) and the center (below 150mm turret)? In these drawings there are even hatches. In game this wall could save the vehicle from large caliber rounds, which would otherwise overpressure the whole vehicle. I couldn’t find a mention about this wall in the O-I thread and now it’s closed.
Spoiler
DTI 8x8 Sea Tiger.
3 Likes
The lead designer of O-I said that the internal walls are 16mm thick. It’s quoted from a magazine in the book 日本の重戦車
4 Likes
I found a better photo of the Type 79 ATGM on the Type 96 WAPC.
Suffice it to say, it seems a bit rudimentary haha. But it could be extremely effective in WT if played right
1 Like
There is a Gaijin account from China that states that it will not provide VT4 to Japan, and the hatred of the Chinese people towards Japan may lead to official intervention if this kind of thing happens
1 Like
those guys need psychological help quite frankly, but also there is the issue why Thailand should go to china and not japan, Thailand is much more close to japan than to China, so i dont see anything wrong here tbh
2 Likes
Also I don’t know if anyone noticed, but the launcher is literally held down with straps. Obviously the Type 96 is primarily an APC, but the mounting is way more rudimentary than similar vehicles in the game like the M113 TOW
1 Like
I mean it would hardly be the worst example in game seeing as the BTR-ZD is also strapped down and held up by logs.
10 Likes
That’s actually hilarious
1 Like
They can still add Thailand to Japan, just not with the VT-4. Have the Oplot as the top rank vehicle for them instead, which is still unique and it’d be a good way to add it to the game, since adding it to the Russian tree would obviously be a no-no.
I do think it’s kinda funny though, considering how barebones the Chinese tree would be without foreign vehicles. Guess they don’t want that M1A2 that they could be in line to receive.
8 Likes
VT-4 should absolutely be in any Thailand subtree, given they use it and there’s a better variant already ingame for CN players.
If CN players want to say JPN tree shouldn’t get it due to past history, perhaps all American vehicles and those from any other nation they fought against, especially Taiwan, should be retracted from the CN subtree?
5 Likes