But why is it so bad just for these tanks?
TKX is also abysmal… a modern MBT cannot complete half a rotation without stalling?
5 Likes
If you have an extra mouse button, I’d suggest to keybind ‘‘Manual transmission mode’’ to it.
Go into a test drive, find the gear which results in the quickest traverse rate, then when you’re in a battle you can simply switch to manual mode which forces the vehicle to stay in that specific gear.
It prevents the stalling and results in a massively faster traverse rate.
This has always been a good trick with the Tiger and King Tiger, both of those turn best at high gears (5th going by memory) and you can surprise people by how quickly it turns.
Just tested the pivot turn myself. As already said, the cause is the instructor’s control over the automatic transmission.
What happens during a pivot is that 4th gear is too high end ends up bogging the engine, the instructor then overcompensates by shifting from 4th gear to 2nd gear- which is too low. You can see the speed ramp up drastically in 3rd gear, only then to switch to 4th for no good reason and stall the engine again and repeat this awkward dance. 3rd gear is clearly the only one that should be used during pivots, the automatic transmission is not programmed correctly to utilize it. 4th gear would likely not be a problem at higher speed if we had regenerative steering, but since we lose all our speed in even a slight turn anyway, 3rd gear is the only acceptable gear for pivot turns currently.
Keep in mind this tank is supposed to have a CVT, for better or worse. But let’s be real, regenerative steering would’ve fixed this problem not only for this tank but all other modern tanks…
Highly recommend a bug report for this one.
Already reported, guess Japan is low priority per usual.
Edit: Apparently the TKX and TKX(P) reach up to 2100 RPM in contrast to the Type 10 at 1200 RPM during neutral steering and do so much faster. The Type 10 is unable to reach these RPMs for whatever reason. All of these tanks suffer from the 4th gear pivot issue.
1 Like
Do you have all the engine upgrades for your Type 10? What you’re showing here is not normal. Your RPM is too low, and the tank is sliding around too much. The engine should reach 1100-1200 while neutral steering and is definitely faster than what you’re showing here. Your video reminds me of how the tank used to neutral steer before a previous fix.
Regardless of engine upgrades though, this kind of performance even on a stock engine is unacceptable.
No this is mostly stock, but so is the M1 and the T-80 for comparison.
2 Likes
type 10 is now mostly immune to autocannons on the turret back
for more details, visit this failed attempt of a thread Autoloader models and questions
3 Likes
I love when unintended “russian bias” effect gets passed along to other nations amid these equalization changes. Time to see how long until it takes them to code autoloaders to generate spall properly, if its even possible to do so. I say this because they probably have to essentially rewrite the modules to all have their own RHA effectiveness, add their own spall generation code, and have it still function and interact with projectiles as a module that can break as well while maintaining armor spall effects.
I do not envy the programmers who have to fix this issue.
1 Like
I’m kind of surprised they haven’t changed anything after a month. It will most likely get changed when they update the entire model someday. Reports have already been made about the autoloader “arm,” so maybe it will get fixed with that. Surely it wasn’t intentional that they have ~230mm RHA in the back of the turret, right?
Can’t have a Japanese tank with protection against autocannons, gotta nerf that ASAP. xD
/s
External differences between the Type 10 prototypes and production model vehicles - Historical Articles [Unofficial] - War Thunder - Official Forum
Type 10 Prototypes - Implemented Suggestions - War Thunder - Official Forum
Old forum posts on the differences between the Type 10 Prototypes. Shows how arbitrary the TKX (P) is
it is just me or type 10 mobility got a bit better? like a very small feeling lmao
No change, and they still haven’t fixed the steering problems. Doesn’t reach peak RPM neutral steering, 4th gear fucks pivot turns.
2 Likes
The Type 10 in the game is a very sad sight. From the videos I’ve seen, it can drive around and steer without losing much momentum at all (try doing that in WT lol, you basically stop whenever you try to make a turn), the gun vertical aim speed is utter shit compared to the real thing, and much more.
And the most fucked up thing about it is gaijin’s ‘‘uh well it is lighter than Type 90, therefore it has less armor’’… as if 20 years of technological progress wasn’t a thing. There are many sources that suggest that the Type 10 has much better armoured turret in the medium threat configuration (which is the one in the game, given the weight). The 48-ton high threat configuration is comparable to the M1A2 SEPv2, even better maybe, as it most likely has ERA on top of the tank to protect against ATGMs.
And finally , it even reloads faster than the Type 90.
Some sauce:
5 Likes
Highly protective armour is either inefficient with weight, or inefficient with space. Highly dense material is heavy. Lightweight (and therefore less dense) material needs alot of space for the same protection. 20 years of technological progress isn’t going to defy physics.
If there was a way to make tanks over 10% lighter while keeping the same or better armour protection levels in the same physical dimensions, other NATO MBTs wouldn’t have gotten heavier in the last 20 years.
Except we know that the Type 10 has more armor than the Type 90 by mass. Also the KF51, Abrams X, and EMBT have all shaved off around 5-8 tons of weight over previous generations of tanks.
8 Likes
except the fact that the armor its twice as heavy as the type 90 armor but covers much less space, also consider the fact that the type 10 is not very big for for a tank with such a west inspired design
5 Likes
Type 10 has more armour than type 90 by weight. Lets not forget the pleothera of other tanks in recent time that have shaved weight while keeping good protection.
(from @MAUSWAFFE)
Spoiler
7 Likes
This is provably false, just look at modern E.R.A, efficient in both weight and volume. I guess it defies physics.
It also doesn’t hold up at all for very high hardness materials where a monolithic structure performs far worse that a celled structure due to the way a monolithic block fractures.
2 Likes
This was posted on twitter a couple of days ago, not sure if it can be of any use or not so I’ll just leave it here.
1 Like
Wdym defy physics by being lighter and more armoured?
Extreme example: tank with armour made out of gold is heavier and less protected than a tank with armour made out of titanium.
Also, ever heard of composites?
Also with your NATO MBT statement at the end. With the Leo for example. It gets heavier because they ADD more armour and not change the armour composition already build in. Look at the PSO sides and the 2A7 front or the Abram’s sides. Adding armour and changing its composition are different things and as many already stated, the armour weight increased on the type 10 anyways
3 Likes
Korea doesn’t come out as a subtree
1 Like