type 10 dosent have any side composite just basic armor to stop medium caliber weapons, basically 20 mm apds can pen sides, the composite its all at the front, and nothing in the side
1 Like
Well that is quite funny, he (or a mod) deleted the post I responded too. Reminds me of a certain person who had the same argument here once before. :P
Adding to this since my cope post got hidden.
I’m aware it’s a wiki but the only way to access the main source is by visiting Deutschen Nationalbibliothek and I live nowhere close to Germany
4 Likes
Fair enough, but yes, I did use the Leopard’s composite as an example of drastic improvements with no change in volume. Early 2A4s with B tech have approximately 300mm KE protection, while D tech offers around 600mm KE. The difference can also be seen on the hull of Leopards, specifically the increase from B to C tech.
(very rough numbers)
2 Likes
On pages 9-10 of this PDF, you will find bulletproof performance tests. This includes crystal grain miniaturized bulletproof steel and triple hardness bulletproof steel, as well as special armor. The results show that the grain miniaturized bulletproof steel and triple hardened bulletproof steel were superior to the bulletproof steel used in the Type 90, and that the special armor was applied to the modular armor of the Type 10 after identifying a structure that would significantly improve its performance.
The bulletproof steel shoots 20 and 35mm APSD and 105mm APFSDS, while the special armor shoots 120mm HEAT-MP and APFSDS.
10 Likes
Why is the Type 10 suspension and bodywork not corrected?
1 Like
Low priority per usual
1 Like
On another note.
I really like this camouflage, but it would be much better if we got the classic JGSDF Type 10 camo, without the ‘‘snow’’ pixels. Any idea how Gaijin chooses camos to add to lootboxes? I’d kill for one. And the TKX needs a camo like that as well.
Yes I am aware that I can download a camo and use it, but only I could see it.
1 Like
Many stuff wrong with the Type 10 in game, sadly… Mobility all together is just obviously wrong, armor most likely too. And don’t forget about the reload, which should be faster as well… but I can understand how that would be a bit of an overkill.
2 Likes
They just can’t ever get the colors right with the late bicolor.
I don’t think there will be any more fixes as it is. Any differences from the photo will be ignored. Any mistakes in the model will also be ignored. gaijin’s imagination is correct.
Does gaijin not accept 3D model related issues?
When will the bodywork of the Type 10 be corrected? I have finished my research and tried to use it but it is really bad, it loses speed faster and is harder to use compared to the Type 90.
The reason cited is that the Hydraulic Mechanical Transmission(HMT) cannot be accurately reproduced in-game, and Gaijin was supposedly seeking ideas to resolve this issue. How about posting a suggestion on the forum? For example, ‘The horsepower value should be increased to a level that reflects the vehicle’s actual maneuverability.’ This could be a potential solution.
Type10 information displayed at the Defense Technology Symposium 2012
・The barrel weight of the Type90 is 1153 kg, while the Type10 is 50 kg lighter at 1103 kg.(Type10 Tank gun Wheight: 2700kg, Type90`sTank gun Wheight: 3095kg )
・Sprocket output per ton is higher for Type10 than Type90
Source
https://x.com/PaveSpike/status/268240492658049024
I created a table in excel. I may be wrong.
4 Likes
absolutely epic job this should be enough to start collecting a bit more info regarding the matters
now i noticed something its this too, is this something new? cuz it talks about improvement of firepower and armor
3 Likes
I’ve been talking about this for months. The sole fact that Abrams, a tank 20 tons heavier, is more mobile and agile, is more than enough evidence that something is insanely wrong.
1 Like
Didn’t you mean the CVT? Imo it would be totally possible for gaijin to somewhat code it, but we all know how interested in Japan gaijin is.
While I’m also convinced the armour on Type 10 is wrong in the game, I’d be willing to give it a pass if it was as mobile as it is supposed to be. It was specifically designed to be agile, yet it loses in acceleration to the Russians by a lot and loses in turns to almost everyone - even small turns bleed the speed by a ton and turning on spot is sooo slooow.
If CVT is so hard to code/model, then change the gear ratios and add more gears for improved acceleration and lower the centre of mass to lower the amount of speed lost in turns.
1 Like
They could supplement the lack of CVT by tweaking the outputs in other areas that affect these mobility performances to better reflect/simulate the true capabilities of the Type-10.
But hey since it’s “Not from an official de-classified source” then good luck.
3 Likes
In an ideal world they might devote some time to developing and creating a solution, but at this rate I would be happy if they increased it’s traction and gave it a buff to acceleration and gear ratios
2 Likes