There are two versions. The one recently posted by お兄軍曹 on X features a turret fully covered with unknown armor, resembling that of an M60 Sabra. The other version has partial armor coverage on both sides of the turret and the upper part of the mantlet, resembling the Leopard 1A5.
Now that I take a closer look at the tank, I’m surprised by how well it was built. It even includes a hole for the coaxial MG, suggesting it was designed with the ability to fire in mind. Similar to the other version, this one also features additional spare tracks covering the upper plate, with a few hanging beneath the extended turret basket. You can clearly see some inspiration taken from Israeli tanks here.
The older photo he posted shows that the side skirts are apparently made of real steel and not just plywood, as they have actually rusted.
The second image is definitely a Type 99 hull, but that turret is completely different from the it. I’m guessing the gun is a placeholder with weights and sensors, but the turret shape and various features are not the same as the Type 99’s.
Purportedly by someone who speaks Japanese:
“Engine test by Mitsubishi Hvmtr , not allowed weapons test in private property in Japan ! turlet and gun by JSW ltd . dummy barrel for balanced weight and counter weight behind.”
I will do a bit of digging when I get home. It does appear to be for testing purposes, perhaps for a midlife upgrade of the Type 99 or a new vehicle entirely.
Kinda. Part of the new tracked IFV program is unifying all their tracked light AFVs on a common automotive system (so Type 99, Type 89 replacement, and Type 73 replacement), the chassis Mitsubishi have come up with is based on the Type 99 hull sans the extra roadwheel, so they’re planning to roll back some of the upgrades from that back on to the Type 99 (maybe make new hulls, I don’t know exactly).
As far as I’m aware that programme is stalled whilst the JSDF shifts to a more tactically mobile force for a possible island hopping campaign. (Hence new RCVs etc)
That’s true, but the above example is an actual Type 99 chassis, given the number of roadwheels, access hatches, even the anti-slip patches are 1:1 similar to production Type 99s.
With regards to the Ho-Ri implementation and MaiWaffentrager / Eunaesun’s supposed side of their story. Found in a slop YT short from a few days ago, of all things.
We reported ammo racks of several Japanese late war tanks. Unfortunately the American documents for Chi-Nu and Chi-To prototype were considered too vague, which I somewhat agree with. It’s a solid document, but not a design drawing. Still it makes me wonder if they have anything more reliable about the total ammo count. I’d imagine several Japanese historians and tank model builders must have been inside the sole surviving Chi-Nu, so how come there aren’t anything specific about it in Japanese books or are we just missing the good ones?
Years ago this photo was on some site among other interior and exterior photos of Chi-Nu.
For Chi-To production the change should be rather meager. It might be somewhat helpful or annoying depending on the rack fill order.
And for Chi-Ri the change should only bring even more ammo down into the floor rack, unless they will consider also changing the bustle rack into any kind of first stage rack, automated or none. Fingers crossed.
Chi-Nu, Chi-To prototype, Chi-To production and Chi-Ri reports in that order.
Some years ago I talked with a guy who had helped with gear ratios of some in game tanks. He told some tanks with auxiliary gearbox have reduced amount of gears in game to prevent unnecessarily gear switching. Of course only gears with too similar ratios are dropped off. Rather realistic approach in fact.
Type 61 is a good example. IRL it has 10 forward gears thanks to the auxiliary gearbox, while in game 3 of those have been dropped off. In the below picture the blue numbers are the used gears and red those which were dropped off.
@skultew1234 could this be done with Chi-Has as well? Drop it from 8 to 5 like Ka-Chi’s gearbox was supposed to be used?
Spoiler
However first we should figure out what’s going on with Chi-Ha’s 4th Speed. The auxiliary gearbox should cause much higher difference between the high and low ratios than 1.05 to 0.95. I don’t think that’s even physically possible. From the start it doesn’t make any sense to have 0.95 low ratio, since 3rd speed low is almost the same at 0.96. So if 1.05 is correct, we can calculate the low ratio as 0.59. I think they simply typed 5 and 9 the wrong way around.
I am not sure can it be asked or something like that because it is more the game simplification rather than a historical issue so idk
One think I don’t understand is why do you comparing it to the Ka-Chi transmission where historically it had 5 forward and 2 reverse gears and when Type 61 got “cut down” transmission but not Ka-Chi
I don’t know but it is advisable to find some sources that will confirm these assumptions.
It is also necessary to keep in mind that in this case the max. reverse speed will drop from -19 to -11.8 km/h
For Ka-Chi I can’t imagine any other possibility than having 8+2 total combination. Like tester mentioned, the 1st forward gear and 1st reverse gear are with auxiliary transmission (on low). Auxiliarty transmission are supposed to be mounted so that they can be used with any forward or reverse gear, practically doubling them.
Check Chi-Ha and Ka-Chi transmission diagrams. From both of them you can find 1, 2, 3, 4 and Low to High auxiliary and “direction change”. There is no 5 or R2 in either of them.
It’s the exact same with Chi-Ri. Americans reported 4+1 with reductio. Meanwhile Japanese document has 5+2 and it’s again noted that 1st forward and 1st reverse were with auxiliary transmission. Even that Japanese document reads 4+1 with auxiliary. Other gears simply aren’t listed with auxiliary on low, because their ratios overlap or they are just impractical to use on speed.