Definitely true. But I’d reason a recreation based on those drawings would be much more historical than what we currently have. And also-somebody correct me if I’m wrong-such a recreation would have no more guesswork than modern MBTs due to classified documentation
4 Likes
The rearfacing autocannons are just peak
Isn’t the performance the 200mm (one on the prototype?) even if it gains the 33 extra pen of the longer cannon. I don’t think it’s mobility and armor as a casemate TD is worth 6.3-7.0… At best I think it’s 6.0, it might actually start being strong at 5.0. If it gets the 700HP engine? That HP/T ratio goes from roughly 13.75 to 17.5 if it’s about 40t. Which would be an insane P/W ratio. Then I’d say it’s 6.3-6.7 worthy maybe. But never 7.0 unless it’s got like a 4 sec reload with a 10 plus round ready rack.
I understand the rangefinder but that’s a very map reliant thing at that BR. A lot of times it’s so slow you’re better off guesstimating. Unless you’re aiming at the slower tanks with good armor if which you may not pen anyway and end up Swiss cheese. But hey idk. I was wondering if you could explain in your terms what makes it worth 6.7-7.0 in capabilities. Because the premium (prototype) edition already in game has better armor, and even then with it seemingly being better than the blueprint edition doesn’t play as-well as the production version does. Not by a long shot at its own BR.
1 Like
If it had 10 cm gun, then why you gave pictures of 12 cm gun
This is weird sounding Ho-Ri discussion.
5 Likes
I just thought the same. :P
Volks, please keep it on topic, a german prototype AA is not exactly the topic here.
7 Likes
That is the 10cm gun.
6 Likes
People keep talking about German wunderwaffe ㅠㅡㅠ
1 Like
Ho-Ri such a interesting vehicle no one wants to talk about it :-P
5 Likes
Regarding the unclear aspects of the appearance of the “Ho-Ri II”, the first relatively accurate creative depiction of the vehicle was probably the Amusing Hobby model made in 2019.
As you can see, they referred to the mockup to fill in blanks such as the profile of the casemate, and I think that this is generally probably correct. However, there are some things that may be incorrect. For one, the viewport hatch on the front-left of the mockup superstructure may be a unique feature of the rear-casemate Ho-Ri. This is because the rear-casemate Ho-Ri was a configuration where the whole crew was accommodated in the superstructure - this is most likely the driver’s view hatch. “Ho-Ri II” wouldn’t need such a thing.
Another unclear point is the proper shape of the extensions on the roof of the superstructure. The way it is depicted on the Amusing Hobby model means that the gun would only be able to achieve full depression when aiming directly forwards. It could be the case, but I suspect that it’s probably wrong. In reality, the top extension of the roof may have “flared outwards” toward the back to accommodate 10 degrees of gun traverse horizontally.
In other words, I think that the WOT interpretation may be accurate regarding the roof extension, but there’s also a problem with this. According to the design drawing, it seems like the superstructure sides taper inwards as with the mockup, and that there are also “side bulges” on the tapering part of the roof to accommodate… something. This is shown on Amusing Hobby’s model.
At first, I thought that this “side bulge” may exist to give space for the loading tray when the gun is fully depressed and also turned to one side. If this were the case, the side bulge is probably asymmetrical, only existing on the left side of the superstructure. However, when looking closely at the drawing, you can see that the tray actually exceeds the height of the main roof when the gun is fully depressed, so the way it is shown by Amusing Hobby’s model wouldn’t suit this theory. Perhaps they exist just to give the loaders more space to work?
This is to say that I really don’t know exactly what the roof bulges should look like, and it would probably take someone accurately modeling the interior space and gun dimensions in 3D to understand what is plausible. I suspect that it’s probably some cursed compromise between the WOT and Amusing Hobby depictions, and maybe there is an angled roof plate connecting the top and side extensions.
12 Likes
Honestly, it’s probably the Hobby model- just without that weird hatch on the side; perhaps the hatch on the side is one single part rather than 2.
6 Likes
Thanks
I played it and it’s OP. I took those vehicles up to 7.0-8.0 and they still perform the exact same. I don’t enjoy nor care to use them much anymore at their BRs.
I enjoy the ww2 armor meta and unique vehicles fighting others from around that era. Ho-Ri prototype has no replacement, unless you’re talking about the one in this suggestion, but it’s never getting added. They’re moving away from ww2 ranks feeling like ww2. That’s more what I meant rather than there needing to be a 6.7 line-up for japan, even if it’s vehicles from 40 years in the future. I don’t care for that. I just want the ww2 stuff, but seems I’ll be left disappointed. I’ll just have to play 4.0 mainly now I guess, but the SPHs just got downtiered too and for some reason everyone uses them. 😔😔😔
Arguably that’s a different complaint entirely, because the two Ho-Ris are really the only WW2 tanks that Japan gets post-5.7. Removing them isn’t really going to change much unless you’re the kind of person who pulls out a backup and then leaves after the second death (to which I know for a fact some Ho-Ri Prod. players do exactly this, although they’re of course not affected by the removal).
If you want my opinion on the WW2 VS Cold War issue, I still think an era split is in order, and while the current Ho-Ris do mess with execution of that idea for Japan, their removal from the game means I can simply ignore them and drive a wall between 5.7-6.0 and 6.3+ instead.
1 Like
So, unfortunately, Smin confirmed there are currently no plans or consideration for the Ho-Ri II because it had only just started construction by the time the war ended.
8 Likes
I figured that GJ’s actual standards for implementing vehicles now are different than the standards for forum suggestions, and it seems like that’s the case.
5 Likes
Problem is that their own standards vary wildly depending on the situation and their own motivations. Look how they handled the F-16AJ and Object 211
5 Likes
