Since the tkx p and type 90 are 11.7 now, shouldnt they get a better round than a dm33 equivalent? I understand the br due to the fast reload and decent mobility (transmission is still wonky but still decently mobile), but with the common uptiers, and ecnountering strong tanks like the swedish strv 122s, why cant these tanks receive a stronger round like a dm53 equivalent on the leopard 2 pl?
2 Likes
Japan historically didn’t make dm53 equals for the type 90, unsure about the tkx, since the gun might still be the l44 (since no type 90 should be able to fire the type 10 dart [called type 10]), is rather have gaijin actually give the type 90/10/tkx their actual turret traverse rate of 40 degrees.
2 Likes
that would be good too, but is jm33 the only non type 10 round the japanese have? Since both guns are l44 types, why cant they at least give them better nato standard l/44 rounds as well, they already did that for other nations that use nato guns but didnt historically use certain rounds
TKX (P) uses the new TKG cannon so can use type 10
as for type 90 Gaijin has repeatedly stated that “whether or not a vehicle can use a weapon is the deciding factor, not if a nation ever actually possessed the weapon” or some thing to that effect (although this rule is only enforced when they want it to be, M1A1 AIM not having M829A2 for example), so the only question is how much the longer is the DM-53 compared to the DM-33 and can it still fit in the Type 90s auto loader?
1 Like
Maybe not dm53 then but any of the abrams rounds?
You would need to know the maximum length of round could fit into the Type 90s autoloader, any Abrams or Leo round that can be fired from the L/44 that is that long or less can be theoretically fired by the Type 90. At the very least any round that isn’t longer than the DM-33 would be fine. And it is possible that the autoloader could fit longer rounds, but I don’t know either way.
Type 90’s gun can only fire DM33 equivalent rounds.
I don’t, its a glorified Light Tank glass cannon.
where are you even supposed to find this info
it is the same l/44 after all. at the very least the tkx (p) needs better rounds cause its 11.7
i wouldnt mind as much if it accelerated like it should and it has more realistic turret traverse
For the size of the auto loader I doubt you can as it’s likely still classified.
For the rounds you can probably find photos of shells next to each other or info on total shell length, the tricky part is that a longer penetrator doesn’t always mean a longer round over all as to a certain point the tail end of the rod can extend into the shell casing
Yes, if you take the type 90 L/44 cannon out of the tank you can load and shoot any round a Rh120 L/44 or M256 cannon can shoot. The issue is the loading system in the tank and whether it can fit the longer APFSDS darts.
As I said the TKX(p) has the new gun built for the Type 10 round so it absolutely should have it.
still if that is the case then 11.7 for the type 90 is questionable at best
No argument on that, given that the M1A1 and IPM1 are both 11.3 and have better rounds, far more armour, are also extremely fast and only have 1 second longer reload when aced.
Wouldn’t it just be functionally identical to the TKX and Type 10 then? Besides the slight model difference
No ?
They moved up to 11.7 because they performed too good at 11.3 with DM33, so giving it a better round would just render the BR change useless.
2 Likes
I’d say that is pointless, given that the vehicle has the best firepower in-game at least at its respective battle rating, better mobility (Type 90 series specifically), it was overperforming at battle rating 11.3 (at the same time it only got, mostly, downtier battles).
Giving a new ammo is asking for more battle rating changes, as staff members stated ammunition is a balancing factor and is removed, modified or added based on inside decision and not historical reasons, putting the Type 90 in a higher battle rating, consequently Type 10 (prototype) would just open the gap even more that I believe Thailand sub-tech tree can’t fill at the moment.
I believe, also, that those vehicles can recieve a new battle rating change once Gaijin fixes its armor values and mobility issue, specially with the Type 10 platform which is hugely lacking one of the key features of this vehicle—mobility and firepower, as reload time is also a balancing feature I doubt that it will ever be historical as the vehicle in real life.
JM33? Best firepower at 11.3?
The IPM1 gets M900, the M1A1 gets M829A1- both with 6-5s Reload.
1 Like
In this case, by firepower I mean reload time plus ammunition performance, platform as well (which honestly M1 Abrams is better anyways). I never had problems with JM33, which actually is overshadowed by the reload time of the vehicle itself.
Obviously M829A1 and others will perform better and M900 being a lower caliber has its differences, but considering you’ll always have a faster reload time even when compared to ace crew, which most of the cases you don’t face, is a advantage.
dont forget Merkava 3’s with M322, 588mm point blank.
JM33 is just japanese made DM33 xD i dont think its equivalent if its the same thing x) (also hi alvis how u doin)
1 Like