Yeah, in German 2x more would mean 1 + (1 × 2), so 3. I’m often a bit confused with English.
That fits NCA on the Type 10 then, since it’s said to be very expensive and reducing spall on it is also stated to have been a high priority for it, likely because it would otherwise spall way more compared to RHA. And even with the developments done I’d expect a bit higher spall compared to RHA, just maybe not almost twice as much.
Probably spall. I’d assume if that is the case it would only be used for the outer parts of the armor, essentially all but interior walls. This could also explain the “second wall” next to the commander, likely RHA or some other lower spall material.
That was not a quote from anyone in this thread. It was a claim from the designers, not us. Are you seriously going to say that designers of a vehicle are going to say, “Yeah, its armor is not very good because it’s light”?
The majority of the armor complaints in this thread are due to the worse overall armor compared to the Type 90. Type 10 uses nanocrystalline steel (which is more like HHRHA), supposedly stopped its own shell (Type IV APFSDS, a protoype of Type 10 apfsds) and the composite in the turret and hull actually increased in weight compared to the type 90, from 1249 → 2680 in the hull and 1381 → 1940 in the turret.
spoiler
What are you on about with the armor being “extremly good”
Whats good about that? Oh wait my bad that was a 9.0 shell. let me do it against an 11.7 one.
Much better! all the parts you cant pen, only have a “chance” to not pen.
There are many such materials, a lot of ceramics like Silicon Carbide (SiC) and Boron Carbide (B4C), Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight Polyethylene, and in the case of the Type 10, nanocrystalline steel can achive such strengths. It’s not super difficult to find materials that are better than RHA; what makes it difficult is the cost and production difficulty. Why use such expensive, complex materials if you can just use more of the cheaper stuff if weight is not a concern? See the Sepv3 and Leopard 2A7V, which are both VERY heavy, very old, and don’t need to care about weight compared to the Type 10.
Also Japan did not develop this material, they just developed a realstic way to produce it in large number which makes sense because they where the largest exporter of steel in the world during the 2010s.
Ah yes, because such an under-developed military can’t field their own AESA missiles, AESA radars, MBTs with extremely complex transmission systems. It’s not like Japan is 6th on the global firepower index. Why don’t you go to the 2A7V thread and complain about how biased the Leopard is because such an under-developed military could never field a tank with good armor, after all, Germany is only ranked 19th and not 3rd like China. /s ;)
Subjective opinion, which is not worth discussing in this thread, please go to the off-topic section for that kind of discussion. I think there would be a lot of people who play France and Italy who would disagree with you. If you are so unhappy with the state of china, go to china fourms to complain. Dont go talk down on other nations MBTs and start a contest about which nation suffers the most.
And if we are going to compare issues with tanks ill join in too:
Spoiler
Armour has holes where its only 20-40mm
Armour is not HHRHA or anything else to represent it being nanocrystaline steel
Armour if flipped in the hull
Turret rotation speeds are wrong
Turret vertical speeds are wrong
Reload is wrong
Repleneshment rate is wrong
missing CVT tranmsition
wrong acceleration
hydropneumatic its too slow
hydropneumatic lacks use on the move function
breech trunion has incorrect thickness
breech trunion is hollow
roof has incorrect thickness
incorrect performance of the hydropneumatic suspension making it bump while moving if you set the supension too low
Im well aware i can make some of them into one issue, but neither did you so nethier will I.
Overall means overall, not just the parts that have armour, If the type 90 had the same optics and shell as the type 10, it would be better. It does not suffer from overpressure nearly as much as the type 10, it does not suffer against autocannoncs nearly as much as the type 10, and relative to its BR has much more usefull armour. I still often face BMP-2Ms or 2S38s in the type 10, which can very easily delete me.
Spoiler
Literally 0 side armour, hell the compsite is not even angled like every other MBT.
And by overall i mean this, type 90 has some weakspots yea but not nearly this many.
The white parts are literally it when it comes to where type 10 stops shells.
Ah yes im biased. lol
Spoiler
I have top tier in every nation. How the hell am I biased? I dont care if it gets these buffs or not, but fact is fact. The person with only china at top tier, with a bit of america, religously defending it is the non-biased one. ok:)
None of that has to do with the Type 10; it’s either completely off-topic, insulting, or just denying and deflecting of our sources. You come in here, claim our sources to be propaganda, call us biased, and then go on rants about China. All you are doing is making it harder to use this thread to actually talk about the Type 10, without actually adding anything of true value.
There is a big diffrence between asking about the armour of the type 10, and asserting that its wrong and “biased”. As all that brings is fighting.
Funny enough You keep discussing about other countries not using this new NanoCrystalineArmor when germany and américa has been developing this same material for years in fact the PUMA ifv it’s using it and américa plans on using it aswell due to its amazing properties over RHA.
You can literally search Nano Crystalline Steel in Google PDF and inmediately find signed PDF of tests done by both germany and the US, the composite in the type 10 it’s twice as heavy as the one found in the type 90 per module, but due to the decrease in size having a smaller engine and a much lighter frame and external armor the type 10 it’s noticeably lighter in fact literally 70% of the weight comes from the frame and external armor, the amor modules are concentrated in the front unlike other tanks that have some in the side and this is even said by japan that the 48 ton version just adds some armor in the side and it already adds extra 4 tons wich it’s a lot.
Frontally, yes. We know that it was successfully tested frontally against 30mm APFSDS. This I’d assume would mean the turret face (cheeks and breech) and UFP obviously, but perhaps also the turret ring, considering both in Gaijins 3D model and the image it is based on it appears to be 100mm of most likely NCA.
The LFP might still be a frontal weak point however, considering the spaced armor that might be behind it is unconfirmed and the interior image for the driver of it doesn’t seem to help much in figuring it out either.
It would also still be vulnerable to IFV autocannons from the sides and rear, likely only stopping lower penetrating rounds from some autocannons as well as HMGs in the configuration seen in game. While there is a claim about 35mm APDS resistance to the sides I’ll take that with a grain of salt considering it’s not an official one as far as I understand.
Sure, I see that a lot on the forums for all nations. But in this thread it is generally about accuracy rather than balance, and people understand that many changes simply can’t be done yet. This only serves to make people, and specifically Gaijin aware of things to be fixed, so the Typy 10 (ideally) gradually improves alongside new tanks being added for other nations and expanding the capabilites seen in game.
We do realize it is a good tank, we just also see that it is different from what it is in reality, and hope to bring it closer to reality once the games balance allows it to.
It’s a bit ironic for a Chinese to accuse other countries of using “propanganda” for their weapons.
IL/FR/IT:True
Well If you consider that all the ZTZs in the game are not domestically produced, then I can only say that there will not be any “domestic” vehicles in the Chinese TT, after all, they are all modified from Soviet vehicles LMAO
