Wasn’t this just rumor? Their layout doesn’t seem to be ideal for armor protection, so I think it’s more likely they would be replaced with armor modules instead.
I’d also doubt it’d just be composites, but likely also ERA that Japan has been doing research on.
It’s coming out this march. All the details we’ve missed. No one knows what the additional armor looks like. More than likely the shape of the sides of the turret won’t change. More than likely those boxes are the same shape as the additional armor. We will get those answers next month. However, what we don’t know, have 0 clue on is the additional armor on the front. That’s an even bigger mystery.
It’s both. Says so in the report. It’s ERA and additional composite screens
I actually somewhat doubt that, mainly because of this shape where no additional armor would be if the shape of the boxes was kept. It makes sense for the storage boxes that aren’t armor, where they have the shape sloping down from the large storage bins to the low sitting smoke launchers. But if this was armor, this would be a weak spot.
I think it might be more likely there would be a new armor piece replacing these storage bins.
上の画像を見てください１０式の試験をしている写真です。砲塔側面に箱があります。
次の写真は砲塔側面に箱がありません。
おそらくあの箱は10式の性能を確かめるための機械が入っているのだと思います。空間装甲とは装甲の中に空間入れて砲弾の威力を弱めるものです。これが10式に空間装甲がある証拠だになると思います
これもです。箱がありません
Even if, this TKX is still quite different from actual production Type 10 and can’t be used for such. Keep in mind these could also be weight simulation pieces for testing (which makes msot sense in this case).
What report?
No they aren’t. They have nothing to do with armour according to type 10 specification (GV-Y120001F) uploaded here.
It is less likely according to 新戦車 (その５) 試作品設計書 (装甲部) (New tank (Part 5) Prototype design (Armour section)) document index CE45-07-A-184-04.
There is no doubt that the second one would not be mounted on the side of the turret.
The first one is also less likely to have a shape that would fit into the side module.
The last one, which I am not so sure about, does not sound like an armour for the front half of the turret sides either.
ゲームの10式を強化する方法はないのですか？
Yep, contrary to popular belief, the storage boxes cannot hold composite armor. Even if they could, it would be very impractical. The Type 10 with the additional armor will definitely look a lot different than we’re used to.
Also is what he is saying about it unveiled in March true?
If we make Type 10 in-game based on the specification and some official test results, it will be much stronger.
These are already discussed here. JGSDF Type10 Tank/10式戦車
And the correction of armour configuration is already submitted as an issue, although it has not been adopted for 2 years. Type 10 MBT’s Inconsistencies, Thickness and Composition
@Noveos_Republic
Yeah, I see so many people and books confusing modular composite armour and side modules.
I have no idea, never heard about it.
Regarding that, I was rather… how do I say this… naive when I made it. Gaijin has a certain way of working, and I highly doubt that this is enough or good enough for them. Since then, I have learned a lot more, both about how Gaijin operates and about the Type 10 in general. Unless there is direct information contradicting a Gaijin claim, I doubt they will bother to change it.
There are some recent examples of this behaviour as well, specifically the Leopard 2A7V and how Gaijin handled its acceleration. Despite having plenty of information to make an informed estimate, they simply gave up and asked for details that are not public.
With the Type 10, the most likely changes are buffing the RHA to NRHA/HHRHA, fixing CVT/HMT, and maybe reworking the turret armour to remove some of the gaps and broken shapes.
I doubt they will mess with the full armour protection or APFSDS. Gaijin uses LO for War Thunder, so unless we can prove the rod is faster, denser, or bigger, we won’t have a great chance of getting more penetration.
For anyone interested, here are Gaijin’s numbers for APFSDS and armour. Do note that some of these might be outdated for certain shells and tanks.
In short, could people make a better report? Yes, with not too much effort. But will it be accepted by Gaijin and actually added to War Thunder? Probably not, as there is no direct source to contradict the majority of Gaijin’s claims.
I’m not the first, and I won’t be the last, to see Gaijin’s behaviour this way. They only change things if they want to or are forced to, and even then, there’s no guarantee they’ll actually make a change. The CR2 breech changes, Stingers, the 2A7V vs Strv 122, and many other issues are examples of Gaijin’s ignorance or lack of interest/need to fix anything.
Sorry if I sound overly pessimistic, I just have my doubts that Gaijin will do much xD.
Yes, if we had the specification of the mystery “48 ton full armour type 10” that can proof to Gaijin, but AFAIK until now there really haven’t any document (whether unclassified or sekrit) that saying what actually is the “additional armour” was
Good luck on this, Gaijin has shown to ignore sources and even if reports are accepted, they’ll likely never be implemented or implemented in a very botched way.
After all, I’ve seen it happen many times already.
More than likely those are the shape for the composite blocks. Ofc some dimensions will change. However that is the most logical answer for it. The only thing that can’t be answered is the addition hull and front end armor and their looks.
I have something for you
@Drag0oon
So, being likely is not enough for Gaijin even if in-game model is less likely.
I must admit that it would be very tough since many of the important parameters are hidden in official documents…
@POC_DA_DOC_GOD
Sorry, but I couldn’t read any of the files.
