for me it’s fine as long as you can rearm at the capture point, 1 missile at a time instead of needed to launch all your missile and then you can rearm, like the type 93.
Four missiles are pre-mounted and ready to launch. The Type 81 has two more missiles for reload on board, so its six missiles in total, which isn´t that bad.
Sadly there isn´t any better option than Type 81 mod.(C) without a sub-TT.
I don’t think the Type 11 missile has the option for carry on reloads on the Isuzu truck.
Definitely not the Toyota platform. But we still have to also find if Type 11 can indeed be used independently.
Type 81 is a different missile with different launchers and I believe smaller thus we see reloads for that one on the same Isuzu truck.
1 Like
I was only refering to the Type 81; four pre-mounted missiles and two for reload in the boxes. ^^*
Also doesn´t the Type 11 need a secondary vehicle to work ?
1 Like
Ah my mistake.
Yeah thats what we are trying to find out. If you read a few post up the Type 11 can be controlled using a optical sight. Obviously no radar but you could in theory use regularly tracking and let the missile use it’s own radar for final target acquisition. But more info is need ofc.
1 Like
If the Type 11 is an ARH, then we might actually be able to launch it in ‘Maddog’ mode (launch without lock and let the missile find the target with its own Radar), afaik something like this can be done with the AMRAAM trucks as well, but I am not 100& sure.
However, if its true that we can contoll it via OPS, then this is indeed a very interesing vehicle as future SAM (perhaps after Type 81 mod.(C), just like the Pantsir after ZPRK 2S6).
Same thing here;
There will be a follow-up suggestion about the Type 11 SAM once there is enough information; if you want to help join our Japan / SK / ASEAN research Server or post information in the relevan thread(s).
EDIT: I now have two suggestions pending (Type 99-155 SPH and Type 81 mod.(C))
Approved;
3 Likes
Performance test between Type 74/90/10 long story short Type 10 beats both but also shows how under performing in particular the acceleration the Type 10 is in game.
5 Likes
It seems kinda odd to me that the JSDF wouldn’t have a contingency plan such as SAM vehicles being able to operate by themselves in case the command structure gets interrupted (radar unit/optical unit gets knocked out).
Type10 where? :c
Transmission being broken since release, have bug-report but never got implemented propper gearbox or horsepower compensation
1 Like
You mean regenerative steering?
Cause the gearbox is fine & HP is fine.
Gearbox most definitely is not.
Type 10 uses a HMT (hydraulic-mechanicl transmission), which, if I’m not mistaken, is a type of CVT (continuously variable transmission). It allows a variable gear ratio, meaning the engine can be running at maximum all the time if the driver wants it (within a certain limit).
WarThunder is currently incapable of making variable gear ratios. It is just outright impossible with the current way that the game is coded.
On a side note, those horsepower changes are live.
3 Likes
The way Gaijin compensated was setting all gear changes to 0.
Meaning there are no real gear changes.
HP optimal range doesn’t mean much except for top speed.
Torque optimal range matters more, which isn’t a detail we can see.
What do you mean?
Meaning the transmission acts similar or identical to a CVT since there’s no gear shift times.
CVT isn’t just about not having gear shifting. It’s also about having the best performance for nearly any given moment. It still a acts far from a CVT.
Just the fact that the in-game driver can outright select the wrong gear, by changing to a higher gear too early, or not changing to a lower gear when going slower after losing speed, ruins that.
Besides, there are still gears that have big gaps between each other. The 7th gear tops out at 50 km/h and the 8th at 70 km/h. This leads to worse acceleration when switching from 7th to 8th, which shouldn’t be the case.
Also, if possible, I’d like a source about the gear shifting times.
Source is the game itself. Pretty sure it was datamined as well at some point.
You make the claim. You provide the proof. It is not my job to search for your proof.
Also, this isn’t completely true.
A vehicle will accelerate better if it runs a higher gear ratio to reach peak horsepower than if it uses a lower gear ratio to reach peak torque.
Even though peak torque is higher than torque at peak horsepower, because it’s running a higher gear ratio at peak horsepower that lower amount of torque gets multiplied by that bigger gear ratio, leading to overall higher torque.
With that in mind the Type 10 would accelerate the best with the HMT changing the gear ratio so the engine is always running peak horsepower.
2 Likes
I think thats fine but they still need to do something to bring the Type 10s acceleration up to what it should be. It should be able to out accelerate Type 90s by a good margin.
Maybe they can within the code increase HP by a good bit and in game keep it saying 1200 hp to simulate the better acceleration?