The gun it used is a mountain gun which has even worse characteristic than the Type 99 75mm the Ho-i using.
1 Like
Came across a really good drawing of the Ho-Ni I prototype completed with a optical range finder.
2 Likes
Actually… What the difference between Chi-Nu 2 and Kai? And what is Ta-Ha? Some SPAAG?
1 Like
So, just a quick question…
Why does Japan still has ZERO aa capability at top tier battles ??
2 Likes
because gaijin couldnt give a dam about Japan, ever seen the new TKX prototype? they literally just removed the turret armor and removed the top round of the Type 10 and then called it a day, and refuses to fix the type 93 and add it’s latest missile, oh and no ATGM variants of it too.
But first they are going to add some premium TKX…then we might get a AA
Based off of the picture, I’m guessing the turret is the primary difference. The Kai seems to have the same turret as the Chi-to Early.
Chi-Nu II = Planned production Chi-Nu with Type 5 gun.
Chi-Nu Kai = Prototype version tested with Chi-To cast turret on Chi-Nu hull.
Keep in mind though that both vehicles had no name in real life but both are better known as Chi-Nu kai (unofficial name) which referred to both tanks. Since Gaijin chose to call the one in the game with their own name of
‘‘Chi-Nu ii’’ so the other version should be called Chi-Nu kai to avoid the confusion.
2 Likes
TK-X covered entirely in camouflage net.
8 Likes
Night fighting equipment prototyped for Type 61 in 1968.
Adopted as Type 69 aiming night vision device (presumably in 1969 as the name suggested) and standardized on Type 61 B-type.
6 Likes
I noticed a disparity between barrel damage models of the Type 10 variants and made a bug report
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/YvR2YQYMVgIh
3 Likes
So it wasnt me being schizo
Can you find any information about a experimental apfsds round be developed for type61？Just find a Japanese website mentions that.
link：www.warbirds.jp/ansq/3/C2000671.html
1 Like
This BR changes is a bonker.
They’re completely prioritzed on destroying the Japanese line ups especially pushing the MCV to 9.7, i would like Gaijin to point me more ground vehicles at 9.7 that i can make a lineup with ?
And the type 87 RCV going up yet again for absolute no reason, at 9.0 ?!? This thing has no gun stabilzer, no thermal, no range finder with 10mm thick armor and less than 100mm penetration at point blank ?
How is this thing an equivalent to the VBC pt2 which has stabilzed gun, laser warning reciever, laser range finder and even thermal ! HOW ? And that is not to mention the proper MBTs that offer you more than meming in the RCV.
Ofc the beating of Type 89 corpse continued.
I like how they kept up BR these vehicles but not giving any buffs to compensate. The Type 16 P and FPS are now 9.3 but still missing the Type 93 APFSDS.
The Type 89 IFV get nothing new, if it recieves 35mm APFSDS then noone would having problem with it being 9.0, but nah.
The Type 87 RCV should get its radar, eventhough it would still be completely fine at 8.7.
Type 16 could use more powerful rounds like DM63 since its gun is NATO-compatible now that it will be facing 10.7.
12 Likes
the type 87 RCV getting to 9.0 its an absolute and insane joke it has nothing to fight mbt’s at that BR its noticeable the lack of thinking behind this br change they just wanted to even out every tech tree and thanks to that the type 89 and type 87 RCV are going to br’s where they just cant do anything the missiles of the type 89 have become completely unreliable and the gun its good and all but we already know what happens to tanks only dependant on 1 autocannon, either they have very good damage and pen or they get missiles that are actually usable
2 Likes
If the Type 16 is going to be 9.7, main gun needs to be faster loading speed.
11 Likes
our prayers have finally been answered
1 Like
TYPE 81 MOD.(C) LETS GOOOOOO AHAHA
Finally