Currently Japan is the only faction in the game to lack a flame tank, and I think I’ve got a pretty good candidate to put forward to fill that hole.
The Ka-Ho was a prototype based on the Chi-Ha, though the armor profile of the hull was drastically changed to accommodate the 2 flamethrowers mounted in the hull similarly to how the M2A4 has its extra machine guns mounted in the hull.
I think this would be a good addition to BR1, though I think in order to balance it out a bit it could be smart to give it the terrible APHE rounds instead of the HEAT on the premium Chi-Ha.
Though this vehicle isn’t in War Thunder and therefore will require some additional work done on it, I think it would be worthwhile.
5 Likes
No need to say more, personally I’m all for it! The Japanese don’t have much equipment anyway, so anything is welcome! I’d love to see the Renault FT in Japanese hands, but this vehicle seems more acceptable to me 
I went to look and damn, he looks amazing in the photos you posted!
@Naohmcete
If it has Stuart level flamethrowers then BR1 is fitting.
3 Likes
You forgot to factor in the mobility of both tanks, the fact that the Ka Ho’s machine guns are roof mounted and mounted in the back of the turret, the terrible performance of the 57 mm APHE against tanks, and that you just don’t have a good understanding of what makes a tank viable.
1 Like
so the 57mm cant pen the stuart at all otherwise there is no balance, cause the 57mm would be a lot better at killing infantry, and this is not war thunder mobility is not a major issue, because any pen of the stuart would lead to a complete crew kill where the stuart penning the ka-ho would not, the maps are so small all tanks are in range of all tanks at all time unless blocked
You clearly lack a comprehensive understanding of vehicle combat in Enlisted, so let me run through a few things for you:
-
Yes mobility matters, not as much as in War Thunder but it’s not something you can just completely disregard. Mobility gives you a higher capability to position your tank and react to the enemy.
-
If it has the same flamethrowers as the flame Stuart then mobility is going to especially matter, those flamethrowers have poor range and damage and the Chi Ha is not a very fast tank, especially compared to the flame Stuart.
-
I’d like to see you consistently one shot a Stuart with the 57 mm APHE. So at best the Ka-Ho would be a purely anti-infantry vehicle.
2 Likes
if it was stat wise as bad at anti tank an not just on paper then yeah it be like the 105mm sherman an infantry killing machine but bad at anti tank,
i agree with most but no mobility is the least important factor when the entire map is in gun range, only obstructive terrain prevents areas from being hit not range like in warthunder. armor is king in enlisted flanking is almost impossible with the small maps.
105 Sherman bad at anti-tank? Wrap it up buddy 
1 Like
i accept youre surrender
yes the 105mm howitzer is an even worse weapon at then youre 57mm lv gun only difference is it at the br it belongs
I’m not gonna be lectured on tanks by someone who says the 105 Sherman is bad at anti-tank
1 Like
i feel the same way for someone who says a 57mm is br1
It literally already is, it’s just locked behind a paywall. And it’s really not what you hype it up to be
2 Likes
Shrugs if it is as bad at at then I approve but only if is as bad at at as it would be good at anti infantry.
Being an twice as good at on thing and and only slightly worse at another is not balance. The 105 sucks because it has a long reload you miss and the enemy gets 2 shots to kill you
Ooooohhh thank god I finally have your approval, what would I do without it. The 105 Sherman is the King of BR3 btw
2 Likes
i just fought in the 105mm king hit a panzer everywhere but the rear point blank ten times, disabled the track but zero crew kills