Jump to content


Japanese Tank Destroyer Line


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

Laurelix #1 Posted 12 September 2017 - 03:10 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2433 battles
  • 93
  • Member since:
    07-21-2014

Tier 2: Ho-Ru

12mm armour

45km/h max speed

47mm gun: 

65mm @ 500m main shell

114mm @ 100m late war shell (premium)

-

Tier 3: Ho-Ni

25mm armour 

39km/h max speed

Type 90 75mm stock gun

90mm @ 100m penetration

100mm @ 500m with premium late war shell

-

Tier 4: Na-To

12mm armour 

40km/h max speed

Type 5 75mm 

124mm @ 100m standard APHE

155mm @ 100m premium APHE

-

Tier 5: 12cm short Chi-Ha

25mm armour 

37km/h max speed

120mm short naval gun

65mm @ 100m with APHE

HEAT with 150mm penetration

HE shell is also a option

-

Tier 6: Ho-Chi 

25mm armour 

Type 96 15cm gun

125mm @ 230m with AP

HE and HEAT are option also 

 

Tier 7: Ho-Ri Prototype 

75mm at 70 degrees hull (225mm effective)

125-150mm turret front 

40km/h max speed

10.5cm experimental gun

(150mm @ 1000m penetration) 

 

Tier 8: Ka-To

12mm armour 

40km/h max speed

Type 5 105mm gun 

200mm @ 1000m penetration

 

Tier 9: ST-T 

L7 105mm gun 

https://m.imgur.com/a/7lFBP 

 

Tier 10: Ho-Ri Production 

120mm at 70 degrees hull (360mm effective)

250-275mm turret front 

40km/h max speed

Type 5 105mm

200m @ 1000m penetration

 

 

 


Edited by Laurelix, 12 September 2017 - 03:18 PM.


CaptainThunderWalker #2 Posted 12 September 2017 - 04:30 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18937 battles
  • 1,297
  • Member since:
    09-25-2015

On the first page of the very same subforum, I found this...

 

http://forum.worldof...e-proposal-v20/



arthurwellsley #3 Posted 12 September 2017 - 04:35 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 50480 battles
  • 2,499
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

Bad form Laurelix.

Not to give the credit to the person who did the work, in this case legasini, and he has done alot of work on Jap tanks so kudos to him.

 

 

and bad form Lauelix not to give the source.

source = http://forum.worldof...e-proposal-v20/

please try to do both in the future.


Edited by arthurwellsley, 12 September 2017 - 04:37 PM.


Nishi_Kinuyo #4 Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:11 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 6971 battles
  • 3,459
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011
I like legga's version more.

Laurelix #5 Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:13 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2433 battles
  • 93
  • Member since:
    07-21-2014

View Postarthurwellsley, on 12 September 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:

Bad form Laurelix.

Not to give the credit to the person who did the work, in this case legasini, and he has done alot of work on Jap tanks so kudos to him.

 

 

and bad form Lauelix not to give the source.

source = http://forum.worldof...e-proposal-v20/

please try to do both in the future.

I haven't even looked at that post. I simply wrote mine from scratch since I have knowledge on Japanese tank destroyers.

I have just looked at it and much of it is outdated information. Ho-Ri I, Ho-Ri II were nothing but concepts. The only Ho-Ri's that existed looked like this:

https://preview.ibb....3Fibv/image.jpg

1 mock up and 1 prototype built in 1944

5 Productions built in 1945. Productions used much stronger engine and had a lot more armour with a production version of the 105mm gun.

 

Chi-Ri case mate TD wasn't even a thing and why would we have Ka-To at tier 6 with Type 5 105mm gun with 1000m/s velocity and 200mm @ 1000m penetration. Also Ho-Ri prototype version would be too weak at tier 9.

 

My TD tree only has tanks that existed which is a nice change since War Gaming has been adding made up fantasy stuff lately.


Edited by Laurelix, 12 September 2017 - 05:25 PM.


leggasiini #6 Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:28 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 9510 battles
  • 5,793
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

No need to call this guy copypaster, because I know that he has knowledge about Japanese TDs as well. I for myself completely forgot about the ST-T, which could be actually better premium candidate than the Ho-Ri II. So no need to call this guy copypaster.

 

However, there are quite a few points I disagree with this line. You need to factor the recent policy of WG's way of balancing the tank lines (aka, the playstyle should progress smoothly on the line, and the hightiers should have somewhat similar playstyle and concept). This line completely is against that rule, as it completely changes playstyles on each tiers so it doesnt fit that at all. 

 

Other things:

 

  • The Na-To is easier to balance at tier 5 than tier 4. At tier 4 it would be quite akward to play with super low HP pool and most likely quite potato gun stats.
  • The Chi-Ha with 12cm short barrel howitzer is an oddball there, and is not proper TD I believe (I think it is classified as medium tank on War Thunder anyways). 
  • The Ho-Chi should technically be artillery in WoT. Its essentially similar vehicle to the Ho-Ro (it has Type 96 15 cm instead than the Type 38 15 cm), the Ho-Ro in return is very comparable to the Sturmpanzer II which in return is arty in the WoT. So due to this, the Ho-Ro likely would be an arty if it ever came to WoT, and same would likely happen for the Ho-Chi as well.
  • The Ka-To is overtiered, even with the Type 5 10 cm. Rhm Borsig has more powerful gun on fully traverseable turret and smaller shilouette. It fits more into tier 7, but due to playstyle reasons I swapped the places with the Chi-Ri TD and Ka-To (Chi-Ri TD is more similar to the Ho-Ri when it games to potential gameplay), making them tier 7 and 6, respectively.

 

You also need to factor that it that unhistorical gun upgrades are perfectly fine, as long as they are not completely unrealistic. We even have things like E 75 (essentially Tiger II) with 128 mm gun mounted on it.

 

View PostLaurelix, on 12 September 2017 - 06:13 PM, said:

Ho-Ri I, Ho-Ri II were nothing but concepts.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong in using the blueprint/conceptual designs. Quite huge chunk of the lines in the game has some blueprint designs on them.

 

View PostLaurelix, on 12 September 2017 - 06:13 PM, said:

Chi-Ri case mate TD wasn't even a thing 

 

 

https://www.reddit.c...tank_destroyer/

 

It was never built but again, this is not WT which is (generally) limited to the prototype vehicles and up.

 


Edited by leggasiini, 12 September 2017 - 05:34 PM.


Laurelix #7 Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:34 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2433 battles
  • 93
  • Member since:
    07-21-2014

View Postleggasiini, on 12 September 2017 - 04:28 PM, said:

No need to call this guy copypaster, because I know that he has knowledge about Japanese TDs as well. I for myself completely forgot about the ST-T, which could be actually better premium candidate than the Ho-Ri II. So no need to call this guy copypaster.

 

However, there are quite a few points I disagree with this line. You need to factor the recent policy of WG's way of balancing the tank lines (aka, the playstyle should progress smoothly on the line, and the hightiers should have somewhat similar playstyle and concept). This line completely is against that rule, as it completely changes playstyles on each tiers so it doesnt fit that at all. 

 

Other things:

 

  • The Na-To is easier to balance at tier 5 than tier 4. At tier 4 it would be quite akward to play with super low HP pool and most likely quite potato gun stats.
  • The Chi-Ha with 12cm short barrel howitzer is an oddball there, and is not proper TD I believe (I think it is classified as medium tank on War Thunder anyways). 
  • The Ho-Chi should technically be artillery in WoT. Its essentially similar vehicle to the Ho-Ro (it has Type 96 15 cm instead than the Type 38 15 cm), the Ho-Ro in return is very comparable to the Sturmpanzer II which in return is arty in the WoT. So due to this, the Ho-Ro likely would be an arty if it ever came to WoT, and same would likely happen for the Ho-Chi as well.
  • The Ka-To is overtiered, even with the Type 5 10 cm. Rhm Borsig has more powerful gun on fully traverseable turret and smaller shilouette. It fits more into tier 7, but due to playstyle reasons I swapped the places with the Chi-Ri TD and Ka-To (Chi-Ri TD is more similar to the Ho-Ri when it games to potential gameplay), making them tier 7 and 6, respectively.

 

You also need to factor that it that unhistorical gun upgrades are perfectly fine, as long as they are not completely unrealistic. We even have things like E 75 (essentially Tiger II) with 128 mm gun mounted on it.

 

Ho-Chi has same gun as tier 6 O-I

Ka-To has 200mm @ 1000m pen tho

you could argue M18 is light tank but it's TD 


Edited by Laurelix, 12 September 2017 - 05:35 PM.


leggasiini #8 Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:40 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 9510 battles
  • 5,793
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View PostLaurelix, on 12 September 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

Ho-Chi has same gun as tier 6 O-I

 

I know, doesn't change the fact it probably still would be artillery instead of TD in WoT standards. The SU-8 arty has ML-20 just like the SU-152.

 

View PostLaurelix, on 12 September 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

Ka-To has 200mm @ 1000m pen tho

 

Which is around ~230 mm at 100 metres. We have a few tier 6 TDs with 210-220 mm penetration, and they are not as bloated and unarmored as the Ka-To. I dont think that balancing it is impossible. The Ka-To / tier 7 was hard decision, because the Ka-To theoretically is indeed better at tier 7 instead of tier 6. However, its still too weak for a tier 8 TD.

 

 

 



Laurelix #9 Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:42 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2433 battles
  • 93
  • Member since:
    07-21-2014

View Postleggasiini, on 12 September 2017 - 04:40 PM, said:

 

I know, doesn't change the fact it probably still would be artillery instead of TD in WoT standards. The SU-8 arty has ML-20 just like the SU-152.

 

 

Which is around ~230 mm at 100 metres. We have a few tier 6 TDs with 210-220 mm penetration, and they are not as bloated and unarmored as the Ka-To. I dont think that balancing it is impossible. The Ka-To / tier 7 was hard decision, because the Ka-To theoretically is indeed better at tier 7 instead of tier 6. However, its still too weak for a tier 8 TD.

 

 

 

More like 250 at 100m

Ho-Chi is Chi-Ha chassis and the gun doesn't elevator like artillery gun would.

 

Ka-To with enough HP and very good accuracy and very high DPM can easily be tier 8. 

 

Anyways Ho-Ri proposal I only has 100mm frontal armour with 150mm @ 1000m penetration and look at the tier you put it at and you're getting me Ka-To at tier 8 would be weak with much better gun.

 

Ho-Ni with Type 5 75mm. This is too far from reality.


Edited by Laurelix, 12 September 2017 - 05:51 PM.


FluffyRedFox #10 Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:46 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21564 battles
  • 7,691
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012
Why do you do some of the pen at 1000m when some maps barely even reach that, let alone the normal combat distances in WoT...

Laurelix #11 Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:49 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2433 battles
  • 93
  • Member since:
    07-21-2014

View Postfishbob101, on 12 September 2017 - 04:46 PM, said:

Why do you do some of the pen at 1000m when some maps barely even reach that, let alone the normal combat distances in WoT...

Bevause that's the penetration Japanese sources give and they are stated at 1000m



Enforcer1975 #12 Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:51 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 18334 battles
  • 9,835
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
Aren't the mobile bunkers "destroying tanks" enough?

leggasiini #13 Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:52 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 9510 battles
  • 5,793
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View PostLaurelix, on 12 September 2017 - 06:42 PM, said:

Ka-To with enough HP and very good accuracy and very high DPM can easily be tier 8. 

Unless you give it unbalanced DPM and accuracy it wont be good enough for a tier 8 and there wont be any reason to play it over Skorpion G or Rhm Borsig. Of course, it is possible to balance it to tier 8, especially if you give it better gun upgrade, but it is still better off at tier 7.

 

View PostLaurelix, on 12 September 2017 - 06:42 PM, said:

Anyways Ho-Ri proposal I only has 100mm frontal armour with 150mm @ 1000m penetration and look at the tier you put it at and you're getting me Ka-To at tier 8 would be weak with much better gun.

 

You are ignoring the fact I gave the vehicle upgraded version of the Type 5 10 cm with the premium rounds of the regular Type 5 10cm as the standard rounds (which is what WG has done already with multiple Japanese guns).

 

And you are still completely ignoring the gameplay part on the line itself. You have a Na-To, then you have derp medium but as TD, then you have SU-152 at tier 6 with less armor and much weaker HEAT shells, then you have the Ho-Ri, then you have tank that is basically like the tier 4, then you have post war vehicle and then you have improved version of the tier 7 vehicle. WG will not do that, say what you say. 

 

Im not arguing anymore, I dont want to go deeper there.


Edited by leggasiini, 12 September 2017 - 05:55 PM.


Laurelix #14 Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:58 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2433 battles
  • 93
  • Member since:
    07-21-2014

View Postleggasiini, on 12 September 2017 - 04:52 PM, said:

Unless you give it unbalanced DPM and accuracy it wont be good enough for a tier 8 and there wont be any reason to play it over Skorpion G or Rhm Borsig. Of course, it is possible to balance it to tier 8, especially if you give it better gun upgrade, but it is still better off at tier 7.

 

 

You are ignoring the fact I gave the vehicle upgraded version of the Type 5 10 cm with the premium rounds of the regular Type 5 10cm as the standard rounds (which is what WG has done already with multiple Japanese guns).

 

And you are still completely ignoring the gameplay part on the line itself. You have a Na-To, then you have derp medium but as TD, then you have SU-152 at tier 6 with less armor and much weaker HEAT shells, then you have the Ho-Ri, then you have tank that is basically like the tier 4, then you have post war vehicle and then you have improved version of the tier 7 vehicle. WG will not do that, say what you say. 

 

Im not arguing anymore, I dont want to go deeper there.

If your tree got rid of the Chi-Ri concept, Ho-Ri concept I and combined Ho-Ni I and III into one then it would be ok. also pls don't use type 5 75mm on Ho-Ni. Place Ka-To at tier 7 and don't be afraid to add Naval long 12cm Chi-Ha TD at tier 6.

dont forget about Ho-Ro, has 12cm derp gun.


Edited by Laurelix, 12 September 2017 - 06:04 PM.


leggasiini #15 Posted 12 September 2017 - 06:06 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 9510 battles
  • 5,793
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View PostLaurelix, on 12 September 2017 - 06:58 PM, said:

dont forget about Ho-Ro, has 12cm derp gun.

The Ho-Ro has a 15 cm Type 38, not 12 cm.



Laurelix #16 Posted 12 September 2017 - 06:09 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2433 battles
  • 93
  • Member since:
    07-21-2014

View Postleggasiini, on 12 September 2017 - 05:06 PM, said:

The Ho-Ro has a 15 cm Type 38, not 12 cm.

I meant Ho-To



storm4710 #17 Posted 13 September 2017 - 06:41 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 17675 battles
  • 685
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012

i prefer Leggasiini´s proposal,
mainly because his proposal actually seems like it is made with the game in mind(linear progression)
yours seems nice on paper, but when i picture them in game,
their playstyle changes for each tier, 
that means that crew skills and equipment does change alot through the line,

 

Leggasiini´s proposal only has one real change in playstyle from tier 7 to tier 8
and i totally love the line from tier 7 up(and love the look of every tank from tier 5 up)
i even love the tier 7 and 8 prem tds 

 

Edited by storm4710, 13 September 2017 - 06:44 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users