My Type 10 round spalled on a T-80 just fine last night, but I also hit its side armor.
I believe the vehicle hull composite armor currently implemented in warthunder is upside down and wrong.
A is the composite armor currently implemented in warthunder
・The cover that is attached to the top of the composite armor is bolted in six positions in the red, so it has nothing to do with the yellow-green bolt holes. In case A, the blue bolt holes do not appear to be in position with the yellow-green bolt holes. Even if they were in position, it is unlikely because there would be three extra yellow-green bolt holes.
B is the form of composite armor I am considering.
・I think I have most of the bolt holes in the right place.(I don’t know if I’m right about the yellow bolt.)
Which do you all think is right?
- A
- B
0
voters
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/kQqIQV7OP7Uw
6 Likes
That interesting so its upside down and the front should be repositioned to the back?
1 Like
Yes. To adjust, it is necessary to reverse the top and bottom, swap the front and back, and adjust the shape.
1 Like
Dang how do we even go about to bug report this?
1 Like
I think gaijin made the current armored model from this photo, but the trouble is, I don’t have any other documentation other than this photo, so I don’t think I can make a bug report. ｘ。ｘ
2 Likes
Is it possible for Gaijin to allow adjusting the suspension on-the-move for the Type-90 and Type-10?
3 Likes
It’s not soviet/chinese, so no reason to implement this, same as CVT.
this is a joke right?
It is possible since you can manually tilt the Strv 103 on the move. The “mechanic” is already in the game it’s just a matter of when will Japanese tanks get it too.
1 Like
Every joke has some truth. Japs received ground tree in 2016, since then, hydropneumatic suspension is not able to adjust on-the-move. So, if it’s already 7 years have passed, how long would it take? In best scenario, until Korean sub-tree will be released, with semi-active suspension on K2.
5 Likes
If Leopard 2 armour was equally badly misimplemebted as it is on Type 10
The marked red areas the Gepard 35mm Anti air will be be able to penetrate.
Inb4
“But Japan doesn’t know how to build armored vehicles, look at their WW2 tanks!!!”
There are many other issues as well, but the response from gaijin is “either leave it or provide evidence,” so there is no hope for improvement. An example is the turret rotation and gun elevation speed. The Type 10 operates at the maximum speed the gunner can move it, while the Leopard 2 operates at the maximum speed of its motor. The technical moderator himself stated that the Leo 2 is incorrect, but it has not been corrected.
2 Likes
Type 10 turret rotation
180 degrees in 6 seconds
30 degrees per second
You’ll find they it’s on par with Leopard 2 turret rotation speed
Both the Type 74 and Type 10 have faster turret rotation than Type 90
https://streamable.com/rvdet2
1 Like
someone did a bug report about the type 10 with an official archive stating the turret rotation of the type 10 its around 32 degrees per second
Last I heard the official document states the turret traverse is 30degrees a second or greater and because of that Gaijin limits it to 30 instead of speculating what the real speed may be.
well people have taken speed of the turret rotation for the type 10 and it was 30 degrees without stabilization and during stabilization the engine can give the turret horizontal system a lot of power
[stabilization controls the gun/turret with a motor so that it is not affected by the disturbance, by the gunner’s operation]
this disturbance is specified as 15°/s. the motor is capable of at least 45°/s to turn the turret at 30°/s or more without being affected by the 15°/s disturbance.
Sadly, this debate has been going on for a while, the old forums talked about this video a lot. A community manager basically said the max motor speed does not mean the turret can traverse that fast, so it looks like we are stuck with 30 degrees.
When pointed out that other vehicles can use their max motor speed it was said this would be corrected… However, this was a while ago and no such fixes have been implemented so it really feels like other vehicles get to benefit from this but Japan is left out.
It’s lip service, as usual. I had pointed out nearly a year and a half ago that the Type 87 SPAAG lacked it’s optical tracking capability, and I was told a report had already been submitted on it. Heard nothing further on it. It’s all lip service.
4 Likes