taglosa.blogg.se

The only real things I know for sure about the Type 90s armour is that the JGSDF deemed the Leo 2's armour protection inadequate and that it's supposedly frontally resistant to the DM33 round. It was just some rando website so I wouldn't but my full faith in it. It's quite possible that those are what it was referring to then. A KE turret cheek resistance of 800+ mm RHAe seems fairly plausible for those tanks The latest M1A1 HA variant seems to be the M1A1 HC of the USMC which should currently feature the armor package of the M1A2 SEP. The M1A1 HA+ is an improvement over that. Michael Green, Armed Forces Journal, Steven Zaloga, etc.

The estimates i have seen range from 600 to 700 for the 1988 M1A1 HA variant. The 600-700 mm RHAe for the turret cheeks would put into the projected M1A1 HA territory in terms of KE resistance. With it's 30mm and two ATGM launchers that seems like it would fit. Something compared to the beagle and BMP. Then Type 87 IFV after Type 60 ATM, although I'm not sure about BR, maybe like 8.0-8.3 or something. Then in a line, but not connected to 74s, STC at 9.3 (where the top teir tanks are)/ 9.7 (where they belong) and Type 90 at same as M1A1 (wherever that ends up). Overall my dream team for a T6 japanese lineup would be Type 74 g Kai with Type 93 round at 8.7 (maybe 9.0, but I don't think those panels will provide nearly enough protection, and the Type 74 is massively under-preforming at 8.7 right now) with current type 74 renamed Type 74 D or suchlike and stuck at 8.3. It is however an inexact measurement because I've seen pen values of the DM33 at 2Km ranging from 450-600.

Type 90 was made to resist DM33/JM33 shells so that puts it closer to the 600-700 of the M1A1.