Yeah, a lot of assumptions seem illogical or sometimes can even be disproven, but we have no exact sources for what it should be.
For example the front composite armor holes is disproven since the space cannot be needed for tension mechanisms that are outside, but there is no source stating what it should be like.
The hull ammo storage unlike Type 90 is not wet storage, it’s illogical, but not disproven either.
The armor is also resistant towards Type IV APFSDS (prototype for Type 10 APFSDS) from a distance of 250m in the turret cheek, gun breech and UFP area. So the current breech armor is absolutely too low, however we don’t have any penetration values for the round and even if we had them this might be too vague.
That’s sadly how most issues with Type 10 and other similarly classified vehicles are. We are very dependent on Gaijins assumptions and can’t change them until we can prove actual facts, even if older assumptions can be disproven.
That’s my issue with people wanting vehicles even if they are gimped. 9/10 times, there are issues, and unless gaijin does something to the vehicle in the slightly malleable phase of the dev server, it’s permanently stuck in the state it’s in.
Regardless of if gaijin acknowledges if their current implementation of a certain vehicle is wrong, they prefer to keep the wrong implementation if there aren’t exact figures or diagrams to prove how much different it is. Especially so if it’s convenient for them gameplay wise.
I remember many people on the old forum saying “oh they’re just holding back, waiting for the t90m, leopard2a7v, m1a2sep to arrive, it’s actually future proof”
But there hasn’t been any real changes at all, even after the release of those vehicles.
Well the headlight meshes did get added but whatever.
Spoiler
I can already see how the f2 will be implemented if it ever does. I’ve tried the asrad with its aesa search radar, and while it’s funny to see it go crazy in tacview, it really didn’t offer me any significant advantage. Most likely, the radar will have very few of its features implemented, possibly implemented with worse figures than other radars, and the aam4 would most likely just be a aim120c5 clone. Considering that the derby was in the play test, its plausible that the aam4 could arrive, although likely nowhere near real figures.
It is very unlikely the f2 will receive details such as ram and would likely on devserver be a copy paste f16c
I feel like to fight that bug reports should allow “best source available” when the minimum of available sources isn’t available. So for example a single secondary source, assuming there is no primary one or further secondary sources, is enough for a report.
Similarly if Gaijin assumes for lack of sources, other assumptions, with the thought and reason and base in sources going into them should be allowed for discussion or suggestion in some way.
I’m only expecting a slightly better F-16C, so basically the AJ that performs like a Gripen, but slower. I don’t expect radar advantages to even be modeled. To be honest, I am perfectly fine with that, especially if other nations also get treated the same when it comes to AESA.
However, that’s just me. I don’t have issues with the Type 10 besides it lackluster mobility because, for all intents and purposes, the engine is weaker due to horsepower being the end all be all parameter. If the F-2 can be added with a gimped PD radar masquerading as an AESA radar then I’m completely fine with it. Until AAM-4B, it’s not like it will make a damn difference in gameplay anyway.
Yeah, it depends on how they want to simulate it. They should not add “armour” as part of the autoloader. So there is some “overlap” from the autoloader module.
I don’t think a shell that penetrates the side should be able to destroy the autoloader, but here are the pictures from the inside that I have made. The ~20mm thick plate is still there but hidden.
I don’t get the “overlap” on the gunner side but it seems like any spall would first hit the “separator” and only after hit the autoloader. It can also tank quite a few shots, at least on dev atm. Currently its a 10s repair to repair the autoloader and you cant reload while its destroyed.
I wouldn’t say its a “big nerf” as any significant enough damage to the autoloader would also just ammo rack the type 10 regardless. Im not sure if the type 10 has a manual over-ride or if they even want to implement such a feature
(shot in the side around the armour by a strf9040c, follow up shots destroyed the autoloader but also ammo racked me)
well, after this update come true, the loader will be the most painful weak spot, will they fix type10 NC amor to blance it?
i see the “Type 10 MBT’s Inconsistencies, Thickness and Composition” bug report is 1 year ago and looks not change in game yet?
I doubt it. Any hit that would damage the autoloader is much more likely to destroy the ammo at the same time. Considering how long it takes to restock the ready rack, you will probably have your autoloader repaired by then. Sure, it’s annoying, but it’s not nearly as big of a nerf as the massive autoloaders the T-72s got.
well, the main problem is by them intentionally nerf the armor of type10, i got many times the apds-fs shoot my gun ant pen into almost the ammo rack, i hope it will not both damage gun and loader got and on fire make me need spend 10sec to stop the fire and 40sec to repair both the gun and loader
and this game is too much hacker like tarkov, those aimbot cheater are lock on gun or mid of tank, both of them are easy to damage loader
As long as they fix the autoloader model to remove the weird large box behind it I doubt it would affect the tank much at all, only really getting damaged when ammo gets blown up anyways.
The bug report has already been accepted for the Type 90, and since Type 10 is currently using a copied Type 90 autoloader I hope they change that alongside it (since there isn’t enough material to report that on its own)
In bug reports, it is likely to end with a response such as ‘this is not a bug’ or ‘provide accurate documentation.’ Therefore, instead of a bug report, can we submit a suggestion to remove the 20mm section from the front of the Type 10 tank’s turret?
How about proposing something like, ‘Now that modules such as the autoloader have been added as weak points, the 20mm armor section at the front of the turret, which was intentionally added as a weak point for game balance, should be sealed off’?
