Idk that much about the armour of 2SG or RI but id say its about the same as the 2PL, that in combination with a decent shell like DM43 could easily put it in the 11.3 / 11.7 range. T84 should easily fit in 11.7 with its good armour and mobility, depends on what shell it gets. T90S and PT-91M would be good 11.0 fillers for sure though.
1 Like
T-90S is currently at 10.3 for Britain so I think it might make way for an interesting 10.3 lineup with the F-1 (Maybe the PT-91M would sit around here), and T-84 could potentially be a 11.7 but it’s hard to say since I feel like it’s worse than the T-80BVM (11.7) but better than the T-80U (11.3) on paper, pending round I guess
Currently the Leo2PL is at 11.0 and with the 2SG/RI getting the hull armor package it would at least be a 11.3, but it would pale in comparison to stuff like the 2A5/A6/A7 currently sitting at 11.7
1 Like
2PL is 11.3 not 11.0, most people would most likley not mind to trade a worse shell for better hull armour, hell thats what the STRV 122 is it at the moment.
1 Like
Ah, my mistake then. Considering it’s better than the PL it could be an 11.7, but it would be quite possibly the weaker (weakest?) armored of all the top Leopards with no spall liner, with the only merit being the AMAP on the hull that heavily protects the UFP area so it’s really a tossup where it could end up.
Gaijin could balance it based on keeping it relatively on par with the PL by not giving it a better round than DM43 and having it at 11.3, but the lack of spall liner would hold it back from the ridiculous survivability the 122/A7 series (and to a degree, the A5 and A6 with their turret spall liners) if it was put at 11.7, as well as having the shorter L55 gun with less pen values from the A5.
So maybe the 2SG/RIs at best is a sidegrade to something like an Leo2A5 that could put it at 11.7 or a small enough upgrade to the 2PL that could keep it at 11.3 I suppose. Unless I’m missing something here, it’d be nice to see if the Singaporeans/Indonesians added spall liner or anything extra to their 2SG/2RIs.
EDIT:
Oh right, and better commander thermals on the 2SG
2 Likes
Depends on what other modifications there are, i havent looked into either a lot so im not the right person to comment what specific systems they each have. Overall they would be rather interesting add though, but i still think that T84 would be the best addition to help 11.7 but again that depends on the round they add it with.
3 Likes
I’m hoping that the T-84 ERA isn’t gimped and has comparable stats as Relikt, or at least better than Kontakt-5.
Back to the Leopard 2SG/RI though, I came across the Leopard 2NG brochure which indicates that part of their AMAP upgrade package comes with a spall liner so… fingers crossed maybe?
Hopefully someone more knowledgable gives more insight
4 Likes
I wanted to go back and re-experience this.
9 Likes
My new suggestions are up (´◡`)
11 Likes
Not sure it is worth adding a near copy Type 89 when there is the Universal Armored Fighting Vehicle IFV which at least has a different hull. If Gaijin were to add a pre-production Type 89 I’d be more interested in the supposed first prototype at the bottom of your suggestion as perhaps there are a few more differences that have yet to be discovered.
As for the HATM I give my vote due to the launcher being for the most part fixed in place, which was the issue I had with the other armored ATGM carriers proposed for Japan.
1 Like
Ask yourself this, will you be satisfied once the CTTV is added? For how long will you have this satisfaction? Isn’t the reason we want new IFVs because we are no longer satisfied with just the Type 89? Every three months there will be new updates, while other nations keep getting new stuff. However, Japan might not get anything because either we running low on vehicles or the vehicles are not yet ready. Would you rather get nothing like the last update or at least have something at all? Take the TK-X (P) for example. Yes, it was a disappointment that it is a copy-paste vehicle, but we could not complain because at the same time Japan was getting another tank that we could look forward to. And that, to me, is more important than questioning if a vehicle is unique enough to deserve implementation.
Like I mentioned in the reply, the reason for selecting this vehicle is simply because it still exists, which increases its chances of being implemented into the game. It’s easier for the developers to replicate something that still exists. The first prototype doesn’t exist anymore, and there are only a few low-quality photos of the vehicle, so why bother suggesting something that Gaijin likely won’t attempt to make happen? At least with this prototype, you still get smoke dischargers. (´◡`)
But honestly, isn’t that the reason why even till this day we still don’t have the B78 or CCV or GSR105, etc.?
Even the “Universal Armored Fighting Vehicle,” which has been passed to the developers for almost three years now, has more necessary information than those three previously mentioned vehicles, including drawings, performance, and other specifications, yet there is still no sign of this vehicle anywhere.
But hey, if anyone would like to make a suggestion for the first prototype, all the power to you! ;*
2 Likes
Ask yourself this, will you be satisfied once the CTTV is added? For how long will you have this satisfaction? Isn’t the reason we want new IFVs because we are no longer satisfied with just the Type 89? Every three months there will be new updates, while other nations keep getting new stuff. However, Japan might not get anything because either we running low on vehicles or the vehicles are not yet ready.
I am not at all suggesting that the addition of the CTTV is necessary at this moment. Rather, I proposed it as a counterpoint to your suggestion of a Type 89 prototype, because in my opinion there isn’t really any point to have a complete copy paste vehicle when a suitable alternative exists that could fill the same niche. Other nations may have better vehicles available to them in the present or future, but that is a quality issue, something that copying a vehicle won’t fix.
Take the TK-X (P) for example. Yes, it was a disappointment that it is a copy-paste vehicle, but we could not complain because at the same time Japan was getting another tank that we could look forward to. And that, to me, is more important than questioning if a vehicle is unique enough to deserve implementation.
For lineup filler I don’t have any problems with the TK-X (P), at least Gaijin made an attempt to make that Type 10 different than the rest. What I don’t agree with is adding copies simply to fullfill a quota of “Japan got a tank this update”. Maybe there aren’t many top tier vehicles left to add, but there are certainly many suggestions for cold war and world war II tanks that are needed to fill lineups.
Realistically, many people were dissapointed with the near-copies that Japan has recieved in the last few updates (except Type 81 (C) of course), because there are obviously better choices Gaijin could have made that would help the tree out in the other BRs it struggles in. It is not just about whether or not the tank stands out among its contemporaries, but also if it actually improves the tree by some length.
Like I mentioned in the reply, the reason for selecting this vehicle is simply because it still exists, which increases its chances of being implemented into the game. It’s easier for the developers to replicate something that still exists. The first prototype doesn’t exist anymore, and there are only a few low-quality photos of the vehicle, so why bother suggesting something that Gaijin likely won’t attempt to make happen? At least with this prototype, you still get smoke dischargers. (´◡`)
This idea may have held true in the past, but it is obvious it does not longer. Gaijin has added many, many tanks, aircraft, and ships that have little more than a couple of less-than-ideal quality photographs. The PLZ83-130 event vehicle is the newest example, and last update added the Zerstorer, which doesn’t even have any known photos at all (which sparked a big debate on the forums about its alleged reality).
It should seem obvious that vehicles preserved at museums or in the armies of modern militaries would be prioritized by the devs, but as of the past couple years they have been adding the most random and unexpected vehicles with little to no real documentation. Anything that had a prototype is a possibility, the devs just guesstimate the preformances the best they can.
1 Like
Spoiler
If you look at my suggestion again, I made it clear that the Type 89 prototype is proposed as a premium or special vehicle, like a squadron or event vehicle, which Japan currently lacks. When was the last time there was a Japanese event vehicle? The Ka-Chi was added a very long time ago or almost two years ago to be specific. Or how about a premium IFV? Well, we have nothing. Also, just because I made this suggestion doesn’t mean it’s going to be added immediately before all the other IFVs that have been suggested before it. You know, a vehicle suggestion can take up to 3 years or more to be implemented, So anything that has already been passed to the developers in the past still has a higher chance of being added into the game first. Like seriously, this thing was approved for voting just yesterday, but I don’t know why you are so worried about it being something that avoids other IFVs from being implemented.
In matter of facts i always find it perplexing when a particular group of individuals becomes apprehensive upon encountering a new suggestion, fearing that established ones, which have been through Gaijin’s eyes for years, might suddenly face cancellation or alteration. It’s simply not how it work !!!
Unless, of course, even many years after this, we still don’t have those IFVs, and by that point, Gaijin might now be aware of this suggestion and choose to implement it. Well, in that case, it can’t be helped.
Spoiler
I don’t know what the TK-X P filled, we already had two Type 90 which was a pretty good lineup, same with having Type 10 and TK-X at 11.7. And I do not believe that most people were a fan of “at least Gaijin made an attempt to make that Type 10 different than the rest”. Nobody likes having something being nerfed in order to have it at a lower BR, in fact, it is the opposite, we would rather have the vehicle unchanged to remain at the same BR as the vehicle it is copied from. Ask anyone how they think of the Type 16 FPS not having Type 93 APFSDS just to be at 9.3. The TK-X P should have been another 11.7 tank with its Type 10 APFSDS considering both the 11.0 and 11.7 lineups had two tanks at the time. That was my main issue with the TK-X P actually.
The same goes for the Type 89 P; if it’s added, I want it to be at the same BR as the Type 89 without Gaijin attempting anything funny. I like the Type 89 even in its current state, but having another one in the form of a premium or reward vehicle would be a welcome addition so I could have two Type 89s in the lineup. It’s no different from the reason you have a Type 74F or Type 90B.
Yes, there are many WW2 vehicle suggestions, and a dozen of those are from myself. But you need to realize the fact that Gaijin is simply not interested in them. You can clearly tell that for a whole years between 2022 and 2023, not a single WW2 vehicle was added to the tech tree. The last WW2 tank they added was the Hi-Ro sha, and that was in 2021. Despite many of those vehicles requiring little to no effort to make, I’m not going to hold my breath for any more years expecting unique WW2 or Cold War vehicles to be added. If I have to be honest with you, I’m done doing that.
Realistically, many people were dissapointed with the near-copies that Japan has recieved in the last few updates (except Type 81 (C) of course), because there are obviously better choices Gaijin could have made that would help the tree out in the other BRs it struggles in. It is not just about whether or not the tank stands out among its contemporaries, but also if it actually improves the tree by some length.
Spoiler
I don’t remember if I was disappointed with anything we got last update. My biggest concern with the copy-paste vehicle we got last year was the Type 87 P being extremely overrated. If it was added at a reasonable BR, it could be a very useful addition to 6.7 up to 7.3 lineups. I honestly was very glad to see the Type 87 P added. Regarding the TK-X P, my other problem, besides it having no Type 10 APFSDS, is that I would rather have a TK-X No.4 than having a prototype of a prototype, which is simply silly. But I would be completely fine with another TK-X prototype, just not one that is based on the existing TK-X.
And don’t forget the Type 99 which was a brand new vehicle added along side Type 81 in the same year.
Would I rather have something more unique, something we haven’t seen before? Obviously, of course, but since we are not getting them, I’m just going to make do with what we are given. As I said, one is better than zero.
Spoiler
It held true back then and it still does now. If that logic is applied to Japan we should have been given a bunch of unqiue experimental tank by now included the B78. But this is the sixth year since the B78 was passed for consideration, so where is it ? What is stopping Gaijin if they could use their imagination in recreating the vehicle ?
Would you rather keep waiting for six more year and not getting something at all along the way ?
If you look at the PLZ83-130 suggestion it at least have a whole vehicle specifications available. Additionally it is based on the already existing vehicle. And since it is Chinese and was ininitally built for export so i can imagine that achieving more details that is not available on the internet is easier for Gaijin to achieve. Beside don’t they have a Chinese consultant working for Chinese vehicles aswell ? I don’t believe we have one for Japan or at least not anymore.
The B78 for example is desinged exclusively for Japan, most of their stuff are kept in secrecy because they were not trying to seek out for foreign customers. So it is very different between Japan and other countries.
The funny thing is, i made my suggestion for the MCV no.3 aka the Type 16 (P) back in 2020. This thing had everything from countless high resolution of photos taken from different angle to the vehicle performance since we already have the Type 16 in the game so it uses the same vehicle stats. And it took about only two years to be seen in the game. So clearly existing vehicle especially if it based on the already existing one that we already knew about and that they don’t have to figure out the interior layout such as ammunition racks, crew positions, engine placement etc is much easier for them to make.
The common tactical tracked vehicle might be a much easier vehicle to implement, although again it is nowhere to be found. But it should be placed above the Type 89 by provinding it with a 35mm APFSDS rounds, perferably at 9.3 BR. The common tactical wheeled vehicle might not be coming anytime soon given that it is not even yet enter the service. Although both are valuable vehicles that would tremendously enhance the tech tree, it’s better not to expect them if you don’t want to end up disappointed with each new update.
4 Likes
I’d actually say there are reasonable ways to make it different. When I first saw it at 10.0 on the dev server I was expecting it to have removed composites for a weight to 40t, and then function essentially as Japans “tracked light tank”.
Another thing I thought could’ve been done would be the use of earlier prototype version of the Type 10 shell, such as the Type IV that was used as test projectile against Type 10 armor and is at least visually a bit different. This idea actually excited me a lot, as a Gaijin estimation for Type IV APFSDS would help also get a more accurate estimation for armor, seeing as we know that the composite covered areas of the tank frontally resist it at 250m.
And of course I was expecting the hull model to be a placeholder copied from the existing prototype, rather than the final choice. It really caught me off guard that they decided to add the same vehicle, with the same serial number, twice.
But sadly the difference we did end up getting was not a different armor configuration (unless you count the earlier turret storage boxes) or a prototype round, but an artificial limit to JM33 that just seemed a bit lazy.
I’d be very excited if they did take their time to implement all of the prototypes in different configurations or maybe even the same configuration as squadron or event vehicles, but the TKX (P) we got disappointed me.
3 Likes
I thought it was worse because it uses the Type 16’s engine, which produces 30hp less power
Yes this is the one.
But as being said, it is powered by the same engine as the MCV which is slightly weaker but nothing to worry about.
Anyway i want to make clear about the Type 89P, it is most important to understand that the suggestion is never intended to replace the other IFV implementations! It is simply an idea of what could come after them or alongside them! Having multiple vehicles, regardless of how similar they are, is not a loss; it is a gain!
3 Likes
I also think, TK-X and Type 10 could have been in a separate branch aswell. With type 10 succeeding Type 90, and TK-X in the Type 89 branch. (Similar to China having ztz 99 prototype separated from the production ztz 99).
Since the medium tank branch is currently the most packed in the TT and is the most obvious one that people choose to spending time on.
With the Type 10 branch you would get the production Type 10 and Type 10 with a dozer blade
With TK-X you get the TK-X no.3 and no.4 respectively.
And possible more to follow.
1 Like
Yeah but the weight of the hull it’s exponentially lower than the last one
1 Like
The hull for tracked vehicle platform is approx. 24 ton. Adding up turret, ammo, fuel. I think the weight is not much different to type 89 (26.5 ton). Actually, I think it is even slightly heavier than the type 89.