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
And again its Trickzzter hmm
2 Likes
Btw i have uploaded the turret rotation speed comparison of the three tanks.
I was actually more surprised by the fact that the Type 90 turret is the slowest one somehow.
5 Likes
They could just not use maximum speed
Type 10 got here around 30 degree but Type 90 used around 15 degrees and it is so slowly
Actually yes you are right, it seems for some reason the type 90 in that video could not traverse its turret at its maximum speed.
1 Like
Actually Gaijin is right about this one. The one with the turret was never made
But Japan players are not satisfied lol
4 Likes
Chi-Ha Kai & Ka-Chi recieved Type 1 HE. Strange but the a HE shell with reduced pen at ranges ??
The Chi-To and Chi-To late also for some reason got their engine buffed from 400 → 500 hp. They felt pretty mobile now on dev server.
2 Likes
as long as its accurate, id take those buffs. anything to make them actually worth 4.7 is a good day
At the end of the war, a turbocharger was developed for them, increasing power to 500 hp. One of them were even captured and tested by the USN.
source?
Also, I do you think we can get better shells for Japanese tanks? Apparently some are missing the improved tungsten rounds
List of Missing Shells - General & Upcoming - War Thunder - Official Forum
Something that’s curious to me is that the Type 98 Ro-Ke has what looks to me an identical suspension layout of the proposed Type 2 Ke-To suspension layout. However, the Ro-Ke was adopted in 1938, years before the Ke-To would be produced
1 Like
It is mentioned in both Japanese and English-language materials. Here is an example excerpt from the report of the American naval technical mission:
Spoiler
There are other sources, but I don’t see the point in looking for them additionally
Technically impossible, until the Gaijin abandons its self-invented formulas for armor penetration (distorted formula from AaG), or until it makes an exception for Japanese AP shells, as for example it made an exception for Russian APFSDS which are configured manually by developers for the official reason “their characteristics cannot be displayed by a formula”.
It might seem strange to you that even late Japanese tank shells do not carry armor-piercing caps, while the technology was known to them (in the Navy, they probably created the most advanced, and the most complex in design/production armor-piercing caps in history). The fact is that Japanese armor-piercing shells have complex gradient front surface cementation and hardening, therefore they have a kind of “built-in armor-piercing cap”, what in reality is a technology that fully replaces a separate armor-piercing cap according to the results of ballistic tests, at least until we do not take battleship AP shells, where both technologies should already be applied due “square–cube law”.
Spoiler
Note - the hardness numbers are from an early projectile, but they demonstrate the hardness distribution well.
During the war, Japan was one of the world’s largest producers of tungsten thanks to deposits in Korea and Manchuria; in addition, through a network of front companies, China actively sold tungsten from its southern deposits to Japan. Having fairly decent access to tungsten at that time, in response to the increase in armor protection of enemy tanks, it was decided rather quickly to begin introducing tungsten into the composition of projectiles. This was also facilitated by limiting the growth of the power of guns. Due to the characteristics of the theater of operations, namely huge logistics lines, often extremely rugged terrain with undeveloped infrastructure, etc., the possibilities for increasing the mass of guns were limited. For example, the project of a 57 mm (anti-)tank gun, which was supposed to replace 47 mm (anti-)tank guns, was buried because, according to test results, operators found it difficult to operate it manually in difficult conditions due to the increased mass.
Spoiler
57 mm AT gun
By the way, for the reasons described above, they were quite attracted to APCR shells, but the APCR shells made using German technology turned out to be not much more penetrating than the later Japanese tungsten-chromium AP shells, even when shooting at vertical armor plates, and APCR did not go into mass production. As an alternative, German conical guns were studied (in addition, Japanese independent research on conical guns was going on in parallel), but ultimately they were also not considered promising, compared to the recoilless rifles.
When Japanese tank shells in production switched to from “regular” projectile steel to tungsten-chromium steel, the impact strength and hardness of the projectile increases by a quarter compared to conventional projectiles, which cannot be reflected by the current formula.
Spoiler
Note - Japanese shells contained 1% tungsten, as in the graphic materials provided. For projectiles, the hardness numbers (on the surface) would be even much higher due to carburization, the presence of additional alloying impurities in the composition and “hard” face hardening, but this will give a general understanding of the effect of introducing tungsten into the composition of chromium steel.
Pay attention to the improvement in the structure: how much the metal crystals have decreased, the structure has homogenized, and solid-phase precipitation has decreased when tungsten is introduced into the composition of the alloy:
In other words, neither the gradient hardness nor the unique chemical composition of Japanese projectile steel can in principle be reflected by such a primitive armor penetration formula without introducing any external coefficients into it. As far as I know, at least some developers are aware of the problem thanks to some assistant proactive guys, but if we translate developers words from “official”, they not really interested in messing around, this is not considered something important for the game. The funny thing is that the original AaG formula, taken as the basis for the gaijin formula, was closer to the reliable armor penetration of Japanese shells, everything was radically distorted by the gaijin’s personal “improvement of the formula.”
9 Likes