Removal of Japanese Ho-Ri SPGs from the Research Tree and Sale

[skultew1234]

Shy (this dude with character nick) is back on forum to spreading misinfo with hidden (for forum rules) Japan hating and Youka_Saryn personal hating

Before someone will waist their emotions in arguing here just remind that it is same person who faked that F-4EJ Kai is missing AAM-3, faked a lot of other stuff (like T-2 never carried missiles and other stuff what was already deleted from forum) and etc

Or like an example where new made MPMS Kai with new missile was called land cruiser (wrong) and missile from 80s (just a yelling lie)

So I advice to not start useless arguing with this person here which will inevitably go into an uncontrolled fight on the forum with numerous violations of the forum rules.

[jon_man1199]

@Smin1080p_WT

As previously explained several times now, ships have entirely different requirements to be added to the game, due to the nature of their construction:

Personally, I gotta say, I do enjoy the rules for ships since it does give us some pretty neat ones. Glad to hear that more are being considered. That said, I think the point people are trying to make here is that Gaijin has added a couple of ships with fantastical performance that have kind of upended the balance of naval power in-game. I personally don’t think Soyuz, for example, would be as controversial if she were modeled to be more historically accurate in performance.

[Conte_Baracca]

@jon_man1199

That said, I think the point people are trying to make here is that Gaijin has added a couple of ships with fantastical performance that have kind of upended the balance of naval power in-game. I personally don’t think Soyuz, for example, would be as controversial if she were modeled to be more historically accurate in performance.

Yes. This.

Gaijin’s greatest magic trick. Making Russian stuff actually good.

[jon_man1199]

And I mean, with Soyuz, there are options to reduce the ship’s effectiveness. One idea I’ve seen is to remodel the ship’s belt armor to be RHA instead of RCA to more accurately reproduce the original Soviet plan of doing multiple thinner plates to produce her belt (since the Soviets flat-out had no ability to make armor thicker than 230mm). Additionally, they could also nerf the dispersion, because as it currently stands, she’s got better dispersion than even Iowa or Yamato. Which, for the 406mm B-37, is sheer fantasy.

[Tetravault]

Let me just say this; Both the Production and Prototype Ho Ri will be ten years old next year. The fact that they survived this long in the game should be celebrated. Yes, acknowledge they’re fictional vehicles, but they should’ve just been left alone and be a digital preservation for the “what-if” aspects of the project. If they were SUCH a problem before now, they either should not have been introduced in the first place or removed when Japan started getting “better” options.

I even said this in my feedback survey; The game is 10+ years, at this rate we should start seeing the wild, whacky and what-if vehicles from throughout history. If there’s enough information to work with, make good on it! Do we REALLY need another T-80 variant? Do we REALLY need another F-16 variant? If “balance” is a concern, that’s a good joke; Game balance died years ago.

Japan alone still has PLENTY of options to introduce to the game for air and ground, whether they be experimental, prototypes, projects or produced options. The BR gap between the Ka Mi (which is still missing its pontoons btw) and the Chaffee is laughably horrendous, which can easily be fulfilled by some native options like the Type 2 Ke To (an improvement to the Type 98 Ke Ni), the Type 4 Ke Nu (which rearmed and re-turreted the Ke To) and the other Type 4 Ke Nu (which was a Ha Go rearmed and re-turreted with the Chi Ha turret).

Overall, the Ho Ri serves as a nice “what-if” aspect to Japan’s end of WWII options. If new information has come to light about the Ho Ri, make good on it and introduce a more accurate version! Because let’s be honest, the Type 99 is a laughable “replacement” at 7.3. “Oh, but the M163 is a thing!” I am not going to replay the M163 when I’ve already spaded it in the US tree, plus I have zero interest in Thai air and ground. “Oh, but the M47 is there at 7.3!” again, I am not going to replay a vehicle I’ve already spaded in its home tree. I want to play the interesting and unique, the little known and the what-ifs.

[PercussionCap]

@Tetravault

Yes, acknowledge they’re fictional vehicles, but they should’ve just been left alone and be a digital preservation for the “what-if” aspects of the project.

My suggestion is for them to be permanently available but only playable in custom battles (and you unlock them spaded of course).

@Tetravault

If new information has come to light about the Ho Ri, make good on it and introduce a more accurate version!

Funnily enough we do have enough information on the real ho-ri for it to be added, which had 5 vehicles partially built!

[SinisterIsRandom]

This is the problem: Gaijin’s “Requirements” really are nothing but Subjective double standards; they change per vehicle or addition. So when we actually want answers, they cannot give us answers because those “Requirements” are always drastically changing. They shouldn’t, though. As nothing is treated equally and is now open to bias.

[SinisterIsRandom]

That’s the thing they never will. Japan is one of the most neglected trees in the game. This is why the G4M1 getting a new cockpit but not an entire, fully modelled aircraft didn’t surprise any of us. Cause we always get crumbs. Even then, the G4M1’s new cockpit was likely based on the

G4M2 Cockpit rather than a G4M1.

In simpler words: The G4M1 right now is a new cockpit likely based on the G4M2, not the G4M1 Cockpit, though who really knows since the Dev Blog for such didn’t really give us the specifics on which model could have been a contractor since that’s a common thing now.

While the rest of the aircraft is still from 14 years ago.

[SinisterIsRandom]

Now, why would they do that with Japan? People put time and effort into creating awesome suggestions for the past 14 years, and it almost always goes on deaf ears. Mind you, it took 2 years for the Ho-Ni II to be added; however, the suggestion was made nearly a decade ago. So we are mad for a good reason, and we are not alone. A lot of players from DMM are also mad. So Gaijin is getting a lot of unfortunate backlash.

[skultew1234]

@SinisterIsRandom

In simpler words: The G4M1 right now is a new cockpit likely based on the G4M2, not the G4M1 Cockpit, though who really knows since the Dev Blog for such didn’t really give us the specifics on which model could have been a contractor since that’s a common thing now.

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

[SinisterIsRandom]

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.

[skultew1234]

@SinisterIsRandom

References exist out there, lad.

So you haven’t studied its cockpit for real right? I see

[SinisterIsRandom]

Ok im not playing this game. Dialogue is over, imma just wait till the morning. Have a good one.

[skultew1234]

@SinisterIsRandom

Ok im not playing this game

Because you haven’t even researched real cockpit and just saying how wrong it is as that 3D model is just differs from everything

[Youka_Saryn]

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

Spoiler

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.

[LittleWinston]

@ThongOfDoom

BR decompression would fix

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)

@ThongOfDoom

american and german heavy tanks are so low in br

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.

[LittleWinston]

@SinisterIsRandom

vehicles with anti-tank guns on them due to most of those being field modifications.

what a weird looking field…

[SinisterIsRandom]

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.

[Aisbitt034-psn]

It SHOULD invalidate it for war thunder. But it has a red star on it so the rules go out the window

[AurenKarach]

@SinisterIsRandom

STUGs were not intended for tank destroyer duty. N

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.