I would like to bring attention to the current performance of the Type 90 and Type 90B at Battle Rating 11.7 in Ground Realistic Battles.
The Type 90 series currently sits at 11.7 with the JM33 APFSDS (approximately 481 mm of penetration). While it retains its strong mobility and fixed 4-second autoloader, several key areas lag significantly behind comparable vehicles at the same BR.
The 4-second reload is a clear advantage in close-range engagements, but it does not fully compensate for the lower penetration and poor protection when the vehicle is frequently uptiered to 12.0–12.7, where most opponents have significantly better ammunition and armor.
Main Issues Observed
• JM33 struggles against many hull-down or well-armored targets at current BR.
• Frequent full uptiers make the lack of penetration and armor more punishing.
• The vehicle relies heavily on flanking and perfect positioning, with very low tolerance for mistakes.
I would like to propose one of the following options for review:
Lower the Battle Rating of Type 90 / Type 90B to 11.3.
Keep 11.7 but provide a better APFSDS round (for example, a DM43-equivalent level of performance).
A combination of minor improvements (optics/thermals or gun handling) if a full ammo upgrade is not possible.
I understand that Battle Rating changes are carefully evaluated based on overall performance data. However, from both statistical comparisons and practical gameplay experience, the current combination of weak ammunition and soft armor at 11.7 feels unbalanced compared to other vehicles sharing the same BR.
Thank you for considering this feedback. I am happy to provide additional data or replay examples if needed.
Hate to implicitly agree with gaijin, but according to statshark global stats for last month, type 90s seem to be performing pretty much in line with all other 11.7 tanks, both minor and major nations included.
Without evidence I doubt they bigger issues disabling gun breech than any other tank.
Not issue unique to type 90s.
Not issue unique to type 90s.
Had that, no thanks.
Does japan operate such round? Can type 90 autoloader handle it length wise?
Warthunder doesnt work that wa. If you believe type 90 has low thermal res than IRL bug report it. Gaijin wont just randomly give it better thermals.
Doesnt seem to be the case according to statshark.
Iirc Type 90s thermals are in this weird spot where they are just barely under the resolution Gaijin considers gen 2. So they are underperforming in game, but it’s not bug reportable and just a negative side effect of game simplifications.
Whilst not a ground main, uptiers are part of the game. Just because a certain vehicle is underperforming due to constant uptiers doesn’t mean it is a good vehicle. If it were given your upgrades, it would then be moved to 12.0-7. Again simply because uptiers hinders performance doesn’t mean it doesn’t do good at it’s br.
(all matches were in 12.0 and I used Type 90s as second/third spawn most of the time, so stats tanked a bit)
Main issue is honestly just cradle & trunnions on T-series making breech shots rng asf but aside from some angered words being dropped in vc its less of an issue.
I thought it was undertiered asf at 11.7 (still is given that T-80UE-1 is 12.0 somehow) but it’s nowhere near as absurd as U.S. 12.0 Lineup (M1A1HC & M1A2 mainly), which is just laughable.
Literally a 12.3 (arguably 12.7 but muh compression) lineup at 12.0 fighting overtiered T-80U’s and 2A4M’s.
Not even fully spaded btw, lvl <75 expert crew for SA (AIM) and HC and lvl 150 expert for M1A2.
Like ig they could move up Type 90s to 12.0 and give it DM 43 (even though its ahistorical but not like gaijin cares) but only if UE-1, 2A4M, etc. are moved down in BR.
U.S. 12.0 should deffo be 12.3 though.
As we all know from certain tanks across the game, winrate often doesnt mean anything as certain people seem allergic to PTFO and therefore lose far more than if they moved up (cough Tiger 2 cough)
Top tier ground is a complete mess tho. Everything feels bad to play to an extent because GRB sucks with modern MBTs on these maps
