Type 89C is the 14km version which has active Radar guided missiles
Which afaik can´t be used without the FCS, it would be limited to the IR / Light Wave missiles. Unless you can prove otherwise.
They can just get a second ai vehicle to follow you around as a new implemented mechanic
They already said multiple times that multi-vehicle systems wont come. I asked not too long ago and got the answer that such are not considered as options for new SAM.
1 Like
Type 11 SAM literally requires the same thing as Type 89C
Gaijin said many things won’t come and here we are.
It’s not like they can’t do it, they do know how. Look at enlisted ai soldiers.
All they would need to model is ai vehicle following you around and if it gets destroyed you’ll be limited to secondary options.
It doesn´t. The JGSDF version of the Type 11 can be operated independently. (Type 81 mod.C btw, not Type 89C).
1 Like
Which afaik can´t be used without the FCS, it would be limited to the IR / Light Wave missiles. Unless you can prove otherwise.
The radar missiles should be able to used without the FCS vehicle since they’re active radar homing, rather than semi-active or passive radar homing which would otherwise rely on a radar vehicle to lock on their initial targets. However, I didn’t put either the Type 81 (C) or the Type 11 in the tree since they are a bit rule-breaking. It is what nearly got my original Type 81 (C) suggestion in the old forum bonked, since the system isn’t entirely self-contained and, at the minimum, requires the usage of an exterior control panel and optical aiming device in order to function. That, of course, could be handwaved away with a setup timer before the vehicle is able to fire. But, South Korea provides a solution to that issue without having to add either of those two vehicles.
1 Like
Without adjusting this for current BRs, then the list is kind of useless. A significant part of your rank I would be unusable in-game: the Type 92 HAC and the Ha-Go don’t have enough penetration for even 1.0. The 6.0-8.0 BRs also rely on… Dubious BRs. Why would the Type 61s be at 7.3 for having HEATFS? They already do, and they are perfectly balanced at 6.7.
I did forget to add the Chi-Ho to my tree tho.
Looking at Pantsir and new A2G armament, both additions are justified and needed imo.
I couldn´t find any prove for that, neither in your suggestion (maybe I overlooked it) nor on my research, but found smth only for Type 11.
Btw let me invite you to our Server.
1 Like
The Pantsir is able to operate independently while, unlike the Type 81 (C) or the Type 11, their control systems are actually integrated into the launchers themselves in a cabin just behind the driver’s cabin. It’s an explicit function of it. Depending on its mission profile, it either operates alone, or operates as apart of the battery with a single Pantsir launcher selected as the command vehicle, or as apart of a battery with a dedicated fire control vehicle.
I’m not familiar with what A2G armament you are referring to, though.
1 Like
90mm HEATFS is getting buffed and honestly 6.7BR is low. It makes tanks like Tiger II suffer etc. The tank can kill 8.0BR tanks just as easily as 6.7BR tanks with its HEATFS and you can actually one shot T-54 or Leopard 1 easier than Tiger II.
That’s bollocks. The Tiger II isn’t suffering from it, unless they’re so inept as to not just… Shoot the Type 61. Their gun is able to destroy the Type 61 far more easily than the Type 61 is able to destroy the Tiger II, which, from the front, only the HEATFS is capable of doing any meaningful damage to it. The Leopard 1 is a far more mobile tank and the T-54 has a far better gun, better armour, while still retaining decent mobility. The Type 61 isn’t equal to either of those.
1 Like
Fixed Penetration
Type 94 37mm (Ha-Go) [1936]
Type 94 AP (0.7kg at 575m/s)
43mm @ 0m (0 Degrees)
18mm @ 0m (60 Degrees)
Type 98 37mm (Ha-Go) [1938]
Type 94 AP (0.7kg at 685m/s)
54mm @ 0m (0 Degrees)
23mm @ 0m (60 Degrees)
Type 1 AP (0.726kg at 701m/s)
56mm @ 0m (0 Degrees)
24mm @ 0m (60 Degrees)
Type 1 37mm (Type 2 Ka-Mi)
Type 1 APHE (0.726kg at 800m/s)
64mm @ 0m (0 Degrees)
28mm @ 0m (60 Degrees)
50% chance of bounce should be at like 70 degrees
NOT, 50% at 60 degrees…
Fixed M318A1 APBC would penetrate
222mm @ 0m (0)
88mm @ 0m (60)
The APBC would be enough for Tiger II H turret front, to bully that 80mm turret cheeks if they aren’t facing Type 61 and it would be good enough to clap Panther upper plate from 1750m whilst keeping full bore AP post pen damage.
Buffed HEAT-FS makes armour of most tanks useless and will do more damage than now. It would be essentially a much faster Tiger II with same firepower in kinetic terms but gets laser range finder and HEATFS as well at same BR.
Type 61 would still be 7.3 vs Leopard 1 at 8.0
There’s also an option to buff STA-1, STA-2, STA-4, Type 61 rate of fire from 7.7 sec to 6.0 sec (10 RPM)
And buff STA-3 semi autoloader reload from 6.0 sec to 4.0 sec (15RPM)
All of this relies on Gaijin abandoning their penetration calculator system, which they wouldn’t.
It doesn’t, they just have to adjust the calculator to calculate AP rounds correctly
1 Like
But how would that work? You never explained how you got these results in your other thread.
The modifier reduction at 0 degrees for AP rounds should not be as high as it is now.
Then the slope modifiers should be adjusted, the 0 value is divided by a set of different slope modifier values to calculate penetration at different angles.
Anyways… right now the gaijin calculator under calculates all AP round vertical penetration
M77 AP at 822m/s has
191mm penetration after deforming
Gaijin cal gives only 162mm after deforming
M79 AP at 792m/s has
160mm penetration after deforming
Gaijin cal gives only 134mm after deforming
Basically look up any AP penetration source and gaijins calculator consistently under calculates the 0 degree penetration of all AP shells
Furthermore AP shells should not have 100% chance of bounce at 63 degrees (higher chance than APCR in game) when we have sources for penetration even at 70-75 degrees
That doesn’t explain anything. What’s the math behind your calculations that’s getting you these radically different results?
Here’s the thread going into detail what changes need to be made to Gaijin’s calculator to correctly represent US armor piercing rounds so they can finally get their realistic performance