Type 90 need to be moved up to 11.7 he has a great armor and a great speed with an 120mm 4sec reload,now a lot of 10.0 tank (like t72) go to game like 11.3 because the type 90 is Only at 11.3 (that is too op)
1 Like
11.3 is barely even justified lol, it’s like a Leopard 2A4 but with a 2s faster reload that results in being a BR higher.
2 Likes
No.
with one of the worst shells and optics at it’s BR
this and the reload are the only justifications for it’s BR of 11.3
2 Likes
Only forward, TKX (P) has way better maneuverability with slighty worse forward acceleration. I’d go with TKX (P) or any other Type 10, it’s a good brawler.
Only very specific points and if you have the chance to shoot twice (very lucky though), you’ll quickly know that you just need to shoot the area around the breech, not the cheeks, to disable the vehicle by knocking out the crew.
You should know that this decompression only benefits 9.0 vehicles, so you should know that anything above it has moved up BR, same with the Type 90, so anyway, it’s like playing it when was 11.0. Didn’t changed much. Actually nothing.
No.
It’s noticeably worse and the Type 90 is much more responsive in every other regard. The Type 90 is much faster and one of the only modern vehicles in the game with an actual gun trunnion massively buffing the breech protection, the TKX(P)s advantages are in the optics (90 = 8.8-10.0x, awful for WT CQC rotation/TKX(P) 4.0-13.3x, wider FoV + Hi-Res thermals) and some cheek/hull composite protection at the tier.
Both are fine where they are.
Don’t know why people keep bringing up the speed as if this is somehow in a completely different league than anything else.
Top speed of the Type 90 is 74 km/h with a reverse of 34.
Compared to a Leopard 2A4 with 69 km/h and 31.
They both have 1500 hp, only the 2A4 is 5 tons heavier which results in a 27.2 hp/t for the 2A4 and a 29.9 hp/t for the Type 90.
So 5 km/h, 2.7 hp/t and a 2 second reload advantage but less armor, -7 and 10 for the Type 90 vs -9 and 20 for elevation, which has to be compensated for with the suspension which takes time.
Turret rotation speed for the Type 90 is only 30 degree vs 40 degree on the 2A4, the Type 90 does get better APFSDS but HEATFS stock, and of course 3 crew because of the autoloader.
2 Likes
Hyperbole aside; the alternative is not bringing it up which would be disingenuous.
Which is noticable, the top speed doesn’t matter as much as acceleration.
Sure the turret rotation, 4 crew and available gun depression are massive positives in favour of the 2A4 (and better optics again to boot), but it’s still hard to say the speed and firepower isn’t deserving of a higher BR when the protection is quite similar.
Especially when the M1A1 and IP used to be lower BR than the Type 90 and absolutely stomped.
1 Like
I think the 2A4 has a stronger turret, I’d have to check the protection analysis though.
Also yeah, the optics in the Type 90 are atrocious and by far the worst thing.
The main thing is more pen and a faster reload speed at the expense of other features, maybe .3 higher at most but I don’t think the same BR would be crazy.
You can rotate the chassis more faster than Type 90, either stopped or in movement.*
For comparison:
TKX (P):
- St: ~15,7s (stopped chassis rotation); ~1,9s (180° rotation, moving at 70 km/h)
- Sp: ~7,5s (stopped chassis rotation); ~1,4s (180° rotation, moving at 70 km/h)
Type 90:
- St: ~9,3s (stopped chassis rotation); ~2,5s (180° rotation, moving at 70 km/h)
- Sp: ~8,5s (stopped chassis rotation); ~2,7s (180° rotation, moving at 70 km/h)
*correction
This required research and got stunlocked for a minute when I learned the neutral steer on the TKX is vastly better than the Type 10 (the TKX(P) handles the same as TKX).
Neutral Steer is slightly faster, Type 90s still have better low speed handling since the TKXs stall out while turning for some reason. Not sure of the practical advantage of 180s at 70 kph.
Just checked both against DM33 and they are very similar at around 400-450KE on the cheeks with the Type 90 having a stronger gun mantlet at 375KE vs the 2A4s 295KE. The Hull UFP on the Type 90 is also better 330-440KE vs ~300-320KE on the 2A4.
idk
same BR could be insane
1 Like
I feel like are vulnerable to the same targets at the end of the day, I find it difficult to justify the current BR difference, should be .3 imo.
Its armor is Leopard 2A4, and its round is DM33 [3BM42 equivalent].
Severely underestimate what 4s reload can do compared to 6s.
You can comfortably push around a corner with someone reloading for 6s compared to 4s.
The Leopard 2A4’s acceleration is pretty good for an MBT, so 30 hp/ton with the Type 90 is insane.
It’s almost on par with most light tanks at the BR, even surpassing some (like the CV90120).
The armour is noticably better than the 2A4, in which it has slightly better turret cheeks (almost as good, if not, just as good as the M1A1’s), and the mantlet is much better, just like what @llSolitairell said. It gets a better UFP, and the fuel tank at the LFP can absorb shells, making it an unreliable place to shoot. The turret ring is not as pronounced as the M1A1’s too.
The Leopard 2A4 shoots DM23, whereas the Type 90 shoots JM33 (Basically M829), so the firepower is much better (so much so as to be able to pen the M1A1’s cheeks if slightly angled and <500m).
Three crew members instead of four is unfortunate, but the pro to this is that you do not need to ace the crew to have the best reload (since it gets an autoloader, and the reload penetalty does not exist for only having two crew members alive).
The Type 90 also gets gen 2/3 thermals, which the Leopard 2A4 only gets gen 1.
It’s fine at 11.3, same with the M1A1.
If anything, the IPM1 should move down to 11.0, as it is inferior to the M1A1 other than slightly better HP/TON, and 105mm smoke shells.
If the TKX(P), which is 27.03 HP/TON, is noticeably worse (in terms of acceleration) than the Type 90.
The Leopard 2A4 and M1A1 (with similar HP/TON as the TKX(P) ) should also feel noticeably worse.
Type 90 does not get gen 2 thermals, it gets gen 1 and it has super low FOV of 8 degrees that means you basically have to play in third person and barely even get to use gen 1 because it’s crazy tunnel vision as Gaijin refuses to add an x1 zoom to it.
For comparison the 2A4 has an FOV of 19
And it’s 6s now but as they’re handing out reload speeds more and more are at 5s, the advantage against all those vehicles has diminished by quite a bit as their buffs are nerfs to tanks like these, there’s now another 6 vehicles against which your advantage is minimized.
This is your visibility in the 2A4, can see everything.
In the Type 90 you can see your target and that’s basically it, using your sights and thermals leaves massive blindspots.
2 Likes
My bad. I am thinking of the TKX (P).
The FOV / zoom it gets does suck, but it isn’t the end of the world.
The Vickers Mk.7 has a similar issue, so I used the binoculars more often / third-person than usual to compensate, and I believe the same can be done with the Type 90. Use the thermals at longer ranges, such that it actually is beneficial to use rather than be a hindrance.
The reload buffs are being given to vehicles that are in need of a buff, such as the Abrams, Ariete, Leclerc, and Merkavas.
The Leopards and T-80s don’t seem to need them (at least not yet).
5s reload is definitely better than 6s.
But I think the difference between a 6s reload and 5s is not as big as 5s reload and 4s.
Example: 2A6 vs M1A2 at a corner compared to M1A2 vs Type 10 at a corner.
And the mobility of the Type 90 pairs well with that 4s reload.
It’s not the end of the world yet it’s something that is permanently something you have to deal with, the FOV is small which prevents proper uses of thermals and situational awareness, plus CQC with default 9x zoom is annoying, which compared to a 2A4 is a significantly QOL issue.
Vickers is also limited but still a step better with FOV 11.
Reload buffs are given to vehicles they cannot be bothered to fix and balance properly and they’re rather just change a number than actually put in the effort, and even with a 5s reload the Ariete’s have no business being at top tier when they refuse to properly implement them.
From 6s to 5s is removing half the advantage, against 6s you have time to respond to a shot and be able to reload before they do, against 5s that advantage is pretty much gone and you will lose a lot more of these engagements.
1 Like
I suggest going third person and then start aiming, or not using the scope at all, as it’s not really necessary.
Agreed.
I understand what you mean. But this can go the other way too.
It’s harder to go on the offensive with the enemy having a 5.0s reload and you having a 4.0s reload, compared to the enemy having a 6.0s reload and you having a 5.0s reload.
However, it’s easier to go on the defensive with the enemy having a 5.0s reload and you having a 4.0s reload, compared to the enemy having a 6.0s reload and you having a 5.0s reload.
I see that you haven’t played the Type 90 much, so I suggest play it more to have a better sense on how it plays.
Here’s my friend, for example:
I suggest going third person and then start aiming, or not using the scope at all, as it’s not really necessary.
Which works in the really short range, but at the end of the street that already gets less effective and there is no good option for that.
And with the modules added getting shot at is just death, you don’t have the armor to survive anything and the autoloader gets destroyed every other shot and deletes all your ammo on top of that, at some point I’d rather have a crew member that I can replace in combat than have to hide for 30 seconds to repair and then make my way to a capture zone to get ammo.
I’ve played enough of the Type 90, the TT ones however have stock heatfs and whoever decided on that should be in prison.
1 Like