In terms of engagement, the Type 16 is consistently at a severe disadvantage.
The DM23 is awful and even the 9.3 2S35 gets good shells like 3BM42. Light tanks should be given better armament in compensation for their bad armor, especially in the early tier of early second generation tanks.
How can the Type 16 be a light tank/tank destroyer if it struggles with T-72, T-64s etc?
At the very minimum, the Type 16 needs the Type 93 shells, which are slightly better and available for the rank 7 Type 16/Type 74G.
Prototype and First Production Series doesn’t need Type 93 APDS-FS. Both vehicles has benefits of good quality termal imaging devices for both gunner and commander at the expense of a worse APDS-FS penetrator while retaining lower battle rating compared to the Production vehicle. I personally don’t think Type 16 (P) and Type 16 (FPS) is struggling with a weaker APDS-FS, it’s a good vehicle nonetheless.
No the type 16 (P) and Type 16 (FPS) are fine at 9.3, they don’t need to go to 9.7 where the type 16 sits with a better shell but uptiers to 10.7.
You have great thermals, aim for the drivers hatch, barrel, or LFP. Or just use the great mobility to flank. If you flank but a T-72 flanked as well, smoke and just reverse if you can’t get a good shot. You shouldn’t be playing this like a MBT. And the scouting on this is amazing, especially on hilly maps.
There’s a reason why type 16 is 9.7, let’s keep the different type 16 seperate.
2 Likes
You got to have more taste in creating these forum.
I need insane take from you my king
1 Like