Unless you use module specific weight figures, it’s not very useful as a measurement (and even then, weight alone shouldn’t be used to judge complex things).
iirc, the Leo 2a4 was put into service in 1981, which makes it almost a decade older than the type 90. This comparison isn’t very reasonable for things that far apart.
In 2 decades, the type 10 shaved off 6 tons and gained protection in comparison to the type 90 in addition to a better autoloading system, a more complex powertrain, and a large selection of digital capabilities.
I don’t know what you do in your free time, but if you ever pay attention to Formula 1, I’m sure you know that 2 teams of engineers can get completely different results from 2 almost identical looking vehicles.
The Leopard 2 was still using the 1979 2A0 armor and the composite composition was likely finalized in 1976/77. Comparing a prototype to a production vehicle doesn’t make sense since most of the Leo 2 tech was from the 70s the same way most of the Type 90 tech was from the 80s. Being in prototype stage the TKX prototypes were using the most up to date technology.
Also I think you’ve been corrected like 5 times already that the ballistic test vehicle was 0003 not 0002 but you keep saying 0002 anyways
In that case…
B-Tech came in 1979
C-Tech came in 1987
TKX-0002 is 1986
TKX-0003 is like 1986-1987
You need C-Tech equivalent on Type 90 cheeks just to prevent DM23 from penetrating. DM23 penetrates 393mm at 250m, Type 90 cheeks with C-Tech equivalent offer 400mm KE
Nevermind DM33… with 479mm KE at 250m
You’d need D-Tech equivalent for that…
Even Leopard 2A5 with 750mm LOS hull composite + C-Tech doesn’t stop DM33 from penetrating. Again Type 90 cheek composite is only 670mm LOS…
yes, and perhaps this is a similar case for the type 90 vs leo 2a4.
Given that it’s just as classified as the armor on the type 10, I have no doubts that someone at some point in time was trying to figure out the composite. The only reason they wouldn’t be is if they already had something similar (Which most western nations probably did in the 90’s, at least in some stage of development).
Fact of the matter is, when you’re dealing with dense materials 5 tons can come quickly with various trimmings, compromises, and efficient technologies. If the type 10 can shave weight while gaining frontal protection, who says the same can’t be true of the type 90, especially when it’s in comparison to a completely separate team of engineers who are following their own development path.
Also, sorry to call into question the numbers as I know it seems to be your thing, but I have serious doubts as to the accuracy of these calculations. First of all, I highly doubt any precise value can be stated for armor schemes that we don’t even know the exact internal layout of. For all we know, the plates in Type 90 Comp could be at a completely different angle or spacing in comparison to 2a4 Comp. Generally speaking, a rough and imprecise number can be theorized, but there is no way to confirm it (which is why relative statements exist). Trying to put an exact number on classified composite is like trying to calculate the the contents of Schrodinger’s box.
I found just a few interesting images about the armor. The cover is dented from the weight of the rain. The dents are separating it from the front composite armor.
Gaijin’s image would not allow such a dent. Unless the roof is welded in steps.
Besides, Gaijin’s image is from the first prototype phase, and the wider cover is from the second prototype phase, which resembles a production tank.
They wouldn’t make a useless improvement by just widening the cover and making it steel underneath.
i had reported on every single thing that they got wrong with the Xray in the Type 90 from the placement of fire controllers (the commander has both controllers and the gunner is instead missing one), the shape of the direct gun sight and ofc the shape of wet ammo storage. But i don’t think they are important enogh for them to fix.
But when you compare to the internal model of the Type 90 to Challengers, T-tanks, ZTZ or Leopard 2, both Type 90 and Type 10 are increddibly lacking of details and it makes me sad.
I just had a little hope that the shape of the ammunition box would be a little more special armor than the diagonal cut-out shape in the current game if it were right-angled like in the picture…
I remember reporting the fuel tank shape of the Type 90 like 5 years ago, so don’t get your hope up, but yeah the tank should be a bit thicker. Especially on the front part sticking out with the black square on it which sits below the composite armor.
Does anyone know why type90’s mobility has some issues? especially when it is turning, the speed will reduce much quicker than other MBTs like m1 or MBT2000, not as smooth as these MBTs, and sometime it will stock. I guess its transmission has some issue?
Even in the Type 90, the gunner is visibly missing his fire controller, and instead, the commander has all the fire controllers, even incorrectly placed. They consider it not a bug.
That’s the backup sight for the gun, the gunner’s primary day/night sight is the roof sight. It has very little use in combat and are mostly used to double check if the gun is clear of obstructions. You can see it’s sandwiched between the gunner’s terminal and the gun breach, and slightly recessed in this drawing here from the old forum
