we need to make one its kinda hard to find all of the bugs since they were eliminated and put into a hold kind of like the PUMA bug report list, it was so big it had to be foldered
altough most of the bugs were ignored for not having enough proof
It would still be nice to have a list to refer to, since it’s annoying to have to find a specific detail in a sea of messages. Would also be more constructive than whatever went on in the other type 10 thread
well at least for the bug reports that are left
“35mm bullets” likely refers to AP rather than APDS, which seems reasonable.
i still dont believe this since the 48 ton only protects against 30mm apfsds wich means that a 44 ton version should not protect against even 35 mm AP wich its still around 60-70 mm pen, it does say in apds for the type 90 aswell??
i suspect that if this is true it may be cuz of the new nanocrystalline material since it even says the type 10 can withstand an rpg to the side of the turret (360 mm)
With NCA we are looking at 1.96× KE modifier (instead of 1× RHA has), so that would be a fairly big improvement and would protect the sides from 35mm AP.
Assuming Gaijins visual representation of the turret ring is correct it would be 100mm apart from the thin upper ring, so that would 30mm APFSDS proof nearly the whole front already. 48t would likely provide such resistence to the sides too.
As for the 35mm APDS resistence, maybe there is spaced armor or similar we don’t know of, or the armor thickness we know is simply incorrect. It could alsp just be an error in the article meaning AP though, or an issue with Gaijins penetration formula making 35mm APDS perform better than it does in reality…
1 Like
Kothari/コタリ talked about there being a wall in the type 10 turret internally(space armor noticeable if you compare the type 10 turret without the blocks and take a look at the crew position inside) but only noticeable from the commander side idk about gunner tho
It would be very iffy to put some extra internal armor on the gunner side and in the ammo rack, given how the panels wouldn’t give any room to fit that in there
yeah so im wondering where that turret armor comes from unless the side armor of the turret is wrong ingame
Type10 related APFSDS
TypeⅢ APFSDS
no info
TypeⅣ APFSDS
640MPa
781 rounds manufactured
TypeⅤ APFSDS
no image・info
Type10 APFSDS
640MPa
1 Like
not much info about it so far i guess
Can confirm that something seems to be going on there. Idk If it’s some type of spall liner, or just additional armor, but I doubt they’d leave a crack going to the exterior of the turret lol.
Edit: can’t really tell if the circles are welds or not
it seems like a weld circle but it looks like an extra plate behind that weld circle the weld circle but it seems that it was made to hold together the upper part and the lower part it does seem like a spall liner or an extra plate but due to the way its held together it seems like its an extra plate
1 Like
i think video as evidence is fine, as long as it’s not a timed stuff. like rotation speed and acceleration, the type 81(c) proved it can go 90° or even back 180° with video proof.
Ever seen a Russian tanks? Why is a T-72B3 or T-80BVM well armored if that is impossible with such low weight? And those tanks (while only having 1.6t more) also have said protection all around, while Type 10s protection is mostly concentrated in a rather small frontal area, leaving sides and rear protected from only HMGs and some autocannon fire.
Of course it is, but we also have more detailed information that isn’t simply a PR statement. We know for a fact that from 250m distance, Type 10 turret face (specified cheeks and breech area), as well as the upper front plate are resistant to Type IV APFSDS, a precursor to Type 10 APFSDS.
I’ve done some rough estimations on performance a while back based on pixel measurement compared to Type 10 APFSDS and, while I am by no means saying this is accurate, got an estimated penetration of ~555mm at point blank (~593 with supposed 7% self sharpening, but I am not completely sure if that is how Gaijin does it), which seems reasonable compared to Type 10 APFSDS in game.
This means that, while still too small, and falsely oriented the UFP correction seems to be within resonable estimated minimum protection (as it is still possible for it to resist more than what we know for a fact it does), same for the turret cheeks. However with this we know that the breech is severely lacking in protection. Going just by the information we have it is supposed to have the very same resistance as the other mentioned areas, and assumptions on protection being lower than the cheeks should only be made while staying within those parameters.
And it is not, it’s only about 1.96x as effective (not more effective) as RHA. This comes from comparing the known tesile strength to RHA (1250MPa) and that of NCA (2451MPa). Since RHA has a modifier of 1x KE in game, this results in 1.9608x (1.96x for simplicity) KE for NCA.
For all we know they might be, but considering neither work with the weight constraints Japan does I’d assume a bit more weight at a much lower cost would seem more reasonable to them. Though the ZTQ-15 is a tank I could imagine to be a possible tank for something like this, being advertised essentially as a light tank with MBT protection (my knowledge on Chinese tanks is low though, so this might be very wrong)
As well as various types of hardened steel, which are also stronger than RHA. Nanocrystalline steel also isn’t some magic protection, it’s a form of hardened steel, a concept already represented in game as well.
While I don’t agree with your statements on Type 10s armor, I do agree it is perfroming rather well currently. I’d be perfectly fine with a statement from Gaijin that fixes will be applied once it is seen as balanced, with more advanced vehicles around. It doesn’t all need to be fixed right away, but the awareness from Gaijin should be there.
This should not be a competition at all, any issue should be fixed, no matter what nation. I also agree that statement seems a bit out of place.
Prototypes, even unfinished are nothing new in game and perfectly normal. However I agree things like the R2Y2s Ho-Ri or F-16AJ are just made up the way they are represented in game. Then again they don’t seem to want to add many real Japanese vehicles in their place that have been suggested to replace them, like the T-1s replacing the R2Y2s or the Type 99 SPG that many thought could replace the Ho-Ri production in the tree.
The F-16AJ however still has a chance to be replaced by a subtree F-16, which seems like exactly the low effort option Gaijin might actually do.
China also seems to have originally been added as a 90% cheap copy of existing vehicles to make a tree for the Chinese servers (going so far as to having even the wrong T-26 model afaik). While high tier is being expanded upon similar to other nations, and likely picking up quite fast considering the great amount of options China has, the lower ranks that were originally mostly copied stay neglected as lower tiers nowdays sadly are.
So I do see a pattern here, where Gaijin prefers copies of existing things (F-16AJ, Ho-Ri Production, Chinese lower tiers) instead of unique domestic additions.
Anyways instead of competing over who has the most issues, or what issues are worse, or what nation is “preferred” even though we know Gaijin just prefers what brings money, we should agree that all of these problems should be fixed and we should work to get that through to Gaijin instead of fighting eachother.
10 Likes
Based comment right there , Also about the armor of type 10 i do not really care that much All i want is mobility fix and turret rotation speed and yes that dumping jumpy suspension also need to be fix as well it been 2 year yall know
9 Likes
Oh, God. The same bigots we saw a few years ago have resurfaced.
So…we will prepare a political official document stating that “NC Steel” in “Japan” “does not have” the “*1.96” qualifier lol.