No? In game cockpit is based on G4M1 one (at least there is some details which could be seen on only early one) and if there is something it can be just a mistakes because there isn’t really good references for G4M1 cockpit
And afaik wt uses same cockpit for different planes from same family. It is issue on planes like T-2 or F-1 where cockpit differences is god damn huge but WT use same cockpit, but for G4M it is just minor difference
References exist out there, lad. Gaijin likely also has stuff from their side of things for DMM and other fields as well. So I’m glad to see a new cockpit, but the fact that the rest of the aircraft isn’t modelled isn’t really excusable.
So you haven’t studied its cockpit for real right? I see
Ok im not playing this game. Dialogue is over, imma just wait till the morning. Have a good one.
Because you haven’t even researched real cockpit and just saying how wrong it is as that 3D model is just differs from everything
There is a vehicle that in theory could be a good fit for the gap that the Ho-Ri will leave behind.
Although the information of this vehicle is scarce, but there are pictures of it existing showing that it was a finished and built prototype.
Depending on if it had thermals or not, It could fill the Br gap between the Type-99 and the Type-16.
If lacks thermals it could sit at 8.0 - 8.3, if it has thermals it could be 8.7 - 9.0.
Komatsu B78 105GSR
Some info I learned in regards to the Komatsu B78 105GSR
The 105mm Low-Recoil Self-Propelled Gun, (abbreviated as the 105GSR) was a vehicle equipped
with a 105mm reduced recoil gun (forward firing gun),
a vehicle incorporated many of the latest technologies of the time,
could be considered a very ambitious project even among Self-Defense Forces vehicles.
It’s main features of the 105GSR are the following:
Offensive reduced recoil 105mm cannon
Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT)
Automatic Loading device (Autoloader)
Hydro-pneumatic suspension
The main part about this vehicle beside the crewless turret was it’s low-recoil 105mm gun, this prototype that was being researched
by the Technical Research and Development Institute (TRDI) of the Japanese Defence Agency, their aim was to make it a successor to the Type-60SPRG, a prototype was completed in 1981.
The vehicle was based on the B78 IFV prototype built by Komatsu but used a experimental overhead mounted turret that was made by Japan Steel Works. It was equipped with a Hydro-pneumatic suspension. A system that allowed to the vehicle to lean forward, backward, left and right, along with that it could also increase and decrease it’s stance. Besides the hydro-pneumatic suspension it also had a fully electronically controlled hydromechanical steering transmission, preceding the B78 IFV. However, due to problems with the 105mm cannon due to reduced accuracy due to rattle and vibration after firing along with a slow automatic loader, it remained a prototype.
The hydrostatic-mechanical continuously variable transmission (CVT) equipped on the 105GSR. It is the first domestically produced AFV to feature an CVT.
Drive system table of the 105GSR. The performance you can read from here is
・Equipped with a water-cooled diesel engine
・Horsepower: 650ps (641.1hp)
・Continuously variable automatic transmission: 4 forward gears, 1 reverse gear
・Maximum speed: 70 km/h, reverse speed: -11 km/h
・Neutral steering.
・Oil-pressure suspension
credit to: Type3fighter for this information.
(5) 三式トニー on X: "105GSRの駆動系装置表。
An Illustration I made, based on Type-3’s video, where he talks about how the gun works.
Source: 【ゆっくり解説】105mm低反動自走砲(105GSR)【マイナー兵器】
Some notes, important things to be checked.
1.
The 105GSR is believed to have used almost the same 105mm ammunition as the Type 74. But, the customized L7 gun has a special (Gas-operation?) recoil system and is classified as an “前進砲”(Forward buffer gun / gun to move forward…?). In addition, custom L7 gun had a low-performance autoloader. “前進砲” is said to be a lost technology in Japan Source: Article from Ground Power magazine no.167
2.
I have not been able to find any conclusive information in regards to it’s FCS and the turret handling is of that vehicle.
I also was unable to uncover any information if this vehicle had a stabiliser or not.
I also have not been able to find any conclusive evidence in the rate of fire this vehicle would have.
I have some guesses based on the exterior design and using existing analog vehicles as a template, I rather have something physical or some definitive or conclusive proof than my guesswork.
I also have not been able to find any information in it’s internal composition, such as the placement of the Gunner, Commander and if there was a fourth member such as a Radio Operator / loader.
I also am not sure if it had thermal NVD sight or a regular passive night vision intensifier (IR Thermal sight or the Green NVD sight).
In regards of it’s specifications, there is a vehicle that there’s slightly more info of and that’s the B78 IFV prototype by Komatsu.
photo of the B78 IFV along with it’s specifications.
Length: 6.16 meters
Width: 3.14 meters
Height (top of turret): 2.15 meters
Weight: 20 tons
Engine: Cummins VTA903T with 600 hp (same as M2 Bradley)
Power-to-weight ratio: 30 hp/ton
Top Speed: 67 km/h
Suspension: Torsion bar
Armament:
25mm Oerlikon KBA
7.62mm Type 74 machine gun
Missiles: probably the Type-79 Jyu MAT
Stabilizer: Yes (thank @skultew1234 for the information)
I primarily want to thank Type3fighter for having uncovered this info,
I have recently ordered the GroundPower magazine in hopes to uncover some more info in regards to the 105GSR.
Also here is a quick 10 minute sketch of the 105GSR I made yesterday.
100% agree, 12.0 games simply doesent exist anymore since every match is 12.7. BR should go up to at least 14.0 and de decompression should start at 6.0 (in my opinion)
I think that there is also the issue with stock tanks, this is especially bad for the americans I.E the T26E5 is very good tank, but it starts out with only T33, having just 175 mm of pen at 6.7 is just ridiculous, the Tiger II starts with the best round it can use with 237 mm, the IS-2 at 6.3 starts with 205 mm and both of those are APHE.
what a weird looking field…
That’s an assault gun. STUGs were not intended for tank destroyer duty. Neither were STUH.
But ended up all finding themselves in such duties.
Here are 3 Examples of Field modifications: 2 are anti-air, and 1 is the Sd. Kfz 251/22, a Field Modification that became an offical factory produced vehicle.
It SHOULD invalidate it for war thunder. But it has a red star on it so the rules go out the window
The Manstein memorandum from 1936, acknowledged positively by the General Staff, already established that StuGs should be dual purpose weapons that can provide both fire support and AT support to the infantry. So this is a bit of a myth. While they evolved more and more in an AT direction, it was always intended to be a combined TD/SPA platform.
Technically Warships do have prototype/pre-production builds. They’re just a lot less common for obvious reasons
proceeds to show pictures of those vehicles completed and being used
The StuG was designed as an assault vehicle, the gun in a variant of the Pak40 and is definitely an anti-tank gun.
Why? It was intended to go into service and was well into the prototype phase.
China’s 211 Project does exist, but the game got the caliber of the cannon wrong. As for the T-3476 tank exhibit within China, it was a gift from North Korea after the Korean War.
Once again, those 3 were field modifications. Also doesn’t matter if the Stug was armed with the 75mm or not; it wasn’t intended to be used for that role. It’s the same with Soviet casemates; many were armed with larger calibers,s including 76mm and late 85 mm and up. But almost all of them were intended for assault forced into the Tank Destroyer role.
Hence->Intended job->Assault Gun.
When needed: Tank Destroyer. (Not its intended job).
I still cannot believe that Gaijin is removing these tanks. I mean, all I know is that they are making money off this somehow and I feel like that is just an unethical practice to remove a vehicle after being in the game for many years just to yank it away when so many other “paper” vehicles are in this game.
Like I already said, this is false.
And this is even falser, as the Soviets doctrinally considered any gun of large calibre (whether self propelled or not!) as perfectly capable of killing tanks, and fully expected them to. This was reflected in training as well. It was no improvisation dictates by wartime conditions or anything.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Unfortunately the snail likes to do things to its subjects lol
