new japanese tank - type 10

Hmmm, the announcer guy seems to be implying it's meant specifically for defensive urban fighting, which I guess makes sense, but 44 tons seems awfully light.
 
Early indications of the programme was that the tank would have to be able to operate on the northern islaand of Hokkaido - numerous rivers and the bridges are not able to support the 55t T-90. Hakkaido also lies just to the south of islands occupied by Russia so it is an important strategic location.

Early concept illustration MBT-2000
 

Attachments

  • JAP- MBT-2000.jpg
    JAP- MBT-2000.jpg
    19.7 KB · Views: 496
JAZZ said:
Early indications of the programme was that the tank would have to be able to operate on the northern islaand of Hokkaido - numerous rivers and the bridges are not able to support the 55t T-90.
Click to expand...

The T-90 is only 55t? I imagined it as being as heavy as a Leopard II or an Abrams.
 
JAZZ said:
Early indications of the programme was that the tank would have to be able to operate on the northern islaand of Hokkaido - numerous rivers and the bridges are not able to support the 55t T-90. Hakkaido also lies just to the south of islands occupied by Russia so it is an important strategic location.
Click to expand...

The other consideration is that most of the Japanese archipelago is mountainous. These tanks have to be able to cover the numerous mountain roads in Japan - some of which are pretty small by western standards.

Starviking
 
this whole make the tank lighter should not come at the cost of armour protection . Something which this tank will validate only when it faces RPG-29s and shaped charges in an Iraq type scenario. The mobility argument is now more than a decade old in the Indian context (vis a vis the Arjun) and now it also includes air mobility - so that a tank can be airlifted by a C-17/IL-76/ whatever.
 
and this has been validated by .. let me guess T-90 .. hardly ... or maybe that low profile tank shown on discovery not so long ago or maybe the plastic tank shown in the same program. Look RPGs have penetrated the Challenger 2 in Iraq. A lighter tank unless it has some pretty revolutionary armour which is probably what you are referring to will fare no better in counter-insurgency operations. Please give an instance of a lighter tank (sub 45 ton) expected in the near future which will fare better against the threats faced in an Iraq type situation.
 
It is difficult to make any assumptions about tank weight and size, tank designers always have to make trade-offs between mobility, firepower, armour and size. The operational requirements drive the outcome, if protection is paramount - then armour becomes more important e.g. Israel - UK long held bias. Soviet approach was keep target small and firepower.

But - technology drivers all are working to create greater power out of smaller engine/transmission packs, lighter armour more effective than before, more potent firepower - driven to be lighter with more compact ammunition with greater lethality - finally all in a small more stealthy ddesign.

How is it working out well lets look at the facts.

UK Challenger - increased in weight and bulk over time (grown to 63,000kg)
Germany Leopard 2 - increased in weight and bulk over time (to 59,500kg)
M1 - increased in weight and bulk over time (to 61,690kg)
Italy - Ariete 54,000kg both interms of bulk and weight it is a substatial jump on the OF-40
Japan - Type 90 50,000kg
Russia - T-80 - increased bulk and weight from 42,000 to 45,000 and now at 46,000kg.

Russia - T-72 increased bulk and weight - 41,000 to 44,500 - 46,000kg
Korea - Type 88 increased from 51,000kg to 54,400kg
China - Type 80 - 38,000 to Type-85 41,000kg and to Type 90 48,000 and Type-98/99 50-51,000kg an increased in bulk
Isreal- Merkava grown from 60,000kg to 64,000kg and increased in bulk

And even the new Japanese tank is not a direct replacement for the type-90 but is rather replacing the Type-61 which is still in service and Type 74's both of these are lighter.

The latest S.Korean KX-2 tank is also just as heavy 55,000kg as KX-1 and of comparable size. But it will have better armour and better firepower, speed etc.
 
SLL - I was not on about the armament .... all these guys have have 120/125 mm etc
I am talking about armour/ protection . jazz has actually made the case in point . If the Japanese tank proves itself in an Iraq like situation ... case closed - better technology- lower weight- yet better protection. time will tell.
 
avatar said:
SLL - I was not on about the armament .... all these guys have have 120/125 mm etc
I am talking about armour/ protection . jazz has actually made the case in point . If the Japanese tank proves itself in an Iraq like situation ... case closed - better technology- lower weight- yet better protection. time will tell.
Click to expand...

It's extremely doubtful that any Japanese tank will ever find itself in an Iraq-like situation. I doubt they will ever be deployed outside of Japan. There is an entrenched pacifist streak in Japanese society now - one that would take an extraordinary situation to turn-around (or a good few generations!).

Starviking

OT: My 100th post! Woo! ;D
 
One must take into consideration, that the average tank crews of the Japanese, Korean and Chinese MBT’s are shorter than that of their European brothers in arms.
This automatically allows for the design of a lower profile tank, which again equates to a saving in mass-weight for the same level of protection and firepower.
Also added to this is in the case of Japan and South Korea, export is either of a low priority (Sth Korea), or not allowed at all - full stop (Japan), so their MBT / AFV design can be totally 100% indigenous in its design parameters.
Where as in the case of the French - for example, their military equipment is often designed with high export in mind from day one, sometimes even over that of the benefit of its National military’s needs.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
SLL, the japanese tank does have slat armour at the back .. not that it means much. Moreover before asking me to look up stuff I suggest you post in detail to make your point , which is just going around in circles anyway. Also take a look at Jazz's figures . The Leclerc is over 50 tonnes and not an example of tanks getting lighter. Please substantiate your point , before asking others to look up stuff. Moreover as far as fitting a 1500 pack is concerned its no biggie. Moreover your new generation lighter tanks will have to be validated in combat first.
 
Pioneer said:
One must take into consideration, that the average tank crews of the Japanese, Korean and Chinese MBT’s are shorter than that of their European brothers in arms.
This automatically allows for the design of a lower profile tank, which again equates to a saving in mass-weight for the same level of protection and firepower.
Click to expand...

Hi Pioneer,

I think the height issue was in the past, at least for Japan. Probably caused by poor nutrition. I've taught in Japanese Junior High Schools for almost 5 years now. Lots of 6-foot high kids in the 3rd year classes.

Starviking
 
forget it man, as you said they are not your tanks either... neither are they mine .... let's leave it at that.
 
in any case people, here's that discovery show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AZe8jOuGpo
 
If japan wants to design a tank against guerilla warfare they should take pointers from israelis
 
yeah and even those heavily armoured Merkava 4's did not fare too well against the Hezbollah .. so unless the Japanese engineers have come up with something truly good (better lighter armour) .. I do not see how this new Type 10 qualifies to be a "COIN" tank.

Edit by mod:

Please do not use word "japs". For some of our members it can be seen as abuse. Thanks.
 
avatar said:
yeah and even those heavily armoured Merkava 4's did not fare too well against the Hezbollah .. so unless the Japanese engineers have come up with something truly good (better lighter armour) .. I do not see how this new Type 10 qualifies to be a "COIN" tank.

Edit by mod:

Please do not use word "japs". For some of our members it can be seen as abuse. Thanks.
Click to expand...

i don't think hezzbollah used the standard rpg 4 and 7 rounds against merks, didn't they use russian cornets?
 
hey mod .. i was in two minds about that myself .. anyway never meant it as anything . .. apologies to my Japanese friends out there
 
hey vlad .. they used RPG-29 and the kornet. Merkava's were penetrated at short range.


sort of related to this ... the much maligned Arjun tank's Kanchan armour has withstood Israeli AFSPDS rounds at point blank range .. of course this is a very different threat from a top attack , HE missile .


but , regardless of what you may read in the Indian media , the Kanchan armour impressed the Israelis and one tank was in all probability shipped to Israel for tests. Do not ask me to give links, because I can't.

the next gen FMBT for the Indian Army may just be developed in collaboration with our Israeli chariot (merkava) making friends


also note that the Arjun was scheduled for comparitive trials with the T-90 and T-72 UPG ... these were suddenly cancelled .. and it was later acknowledged in parliamentary committee reports that the Arjun had superior fire power , armour protection and individual mobility


the Indian Arny was of course always more concerned about "strategic mobility" :D
 
avatar said:
this whole make the tank lighter should not come at the cost of armour protection . Something which this tank will validate only when it faces RPG-29s and shaped charges in an Iraq type scenario. The mobility argument is now more than a decade old in the Indian context (vis a vis the Arjun) and now it also includes air mobility - so that a tank can be airlifted by a C-17/IL-76/ whatever.
Click to expand...

All the heavy armor in the world is useless if it cannot drive to the battle field. Too much armor makes the tank too wide to drive on narrow mountain roads, or too heavy to drive across bridges. Not all nations can afford 70 ton bridges on all roads.
 
JAZZ said:
Il est difficile de faire des hypothèses sur le poids et la taille des chars, les concepteurs de chars doivent toujours faire des compromis entre mobilité, puissance de feu, blindage et taille. Les exigences opérationnelles déterminent le résultat, si la protection est primordiale - alors l'armure devient plus importante, par exemple Israël - parti pris depuis longtemps au Royaume-Uni. L'approche soviétique était de garder la cible petite et la puissance de feu.

Mais - les pilotes technologiques travaillent tous pour créer une plus grande puissance à partir de blocs moteur / transmission plus petits, une armure plus légère plus efficace qu'avant, une puissance de feu plus puissante - motivée pour être plus légère avec des munitions plus compactes avec une plus grande létalité - enfin le tout dans une petite conception plus furtive.

Comment ça marche, regardons les faits.

UK Challenger - Augmentation du poids et du volume au fil du temps (portée à 63000 kg)
Allemagne Leopard 2 - Augmentation du poids et du volume au fil du temps (à 59500 kg)
M1 - augmentation du poids et du volume au fil du temps (jusqu'à 61690 kg)
Italie - Ariete 54000 kg à la fois en volume et en poids, c'est un saut substantiel sur l'OF-40
Japon - Type 90 50000 kg
Russie - T-80 - encombrement et poids accrus de 42 000 à 45 000 et maintenant à 46 000 kg.

Russie - Volume et poids accrus du T-72 - 41 000 à 44 500 - 46 000 kg
Corée - Le type 88 est passé de 51000 kg à 54400 kg
Chine - Type 80-38 000 au Type 85 41000 kg et Type 90 48000 et Type 98/99 50-51 000 kg et augmentation du volume
Isreal - Merkava est passé de 60000 kg à 64000 kg et a augmenté en vrac

Et même le nouveau char japonais ne remplace pas directement le type 90, mais remplace plutôt le type 61 qui est toujours en service et les types 74 sont tous deux plus légers.

Le dernier char S.Korean KX-2 est également tout aussi lourd de 55 000 kg que le KX-1 et de taille comparable. Mais il aura une meilleure armure et une meilleure puissance de feu, une meilleure vitesse, etc.
Click to expand...
And the Leclerc ? It's not the worst.
 
collins355 said:
Cjc said:
Grey Havoc said:
Leclerc has indeed built up quite a good reputation in recent years.
Click to expand...
On what? I'm not aware of it fighting anyone.
Click to expand...
nationalinterest.org

The UAE's Leclerc Tanks Had a Rough Time in Yemen

Whether the Leclerc is better protected than America's equivalent M1A1 Abrams is debatable. However, the Leclerc is less fuel-thirsty, boosting its unrefueled range to an impressive 340 miles.
nationalinterest.org nationalinterest.org
Click to expand...
Interesting, I didn't think the uae sent any of there tanks to yemin, gust its airforce.
 
In the Yemen war, it is really difficult to derive serious informations about the quality of the MBT themselves, be they Abrams or Leclerc. The quality of crews (or the absence thereof) is a much larger problem, as can be seen by the number of tanks abandoned intact by their crews.

Whoever in the Pentagon compared any force of the peninsula with Sparta is an ignoramus in history.
Spartans were famous for the individual courage of its soldiers, who would not abandon position and fight to death, to the last man.
 
dan_inbox said:
In the Yemen war, it is really difficult to derive serious informations about the quality of the MBT themselves, be they Abrams or Leclerc. The quality of crews (or the absence thereof) is a much larger problem, as can be seen by the number of tanks abandoned intact by their crews.

Whoever in the Pentagon compared any force of the peninsula with Sparta is an ignoramus in history.
Spartans were famous for the individual courage of its soldiers, who would not abandon position and fight to death, to the last man.
Click to expand...
The myth of Spartan invincibility and legendary courage is just that: a myth. They were regularly outfought on land by, among others, those effete, corrupt Athenians. See https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/sparta-much-more-army-warriors-180978583/

Lord, how did a culture built around removing children from their parents, enforcing pedophilia, and encouraging the elites to kill the people doing all the work to keep the country going (the helots) ever get onto anybody's list of ideal civilizations?
 
1635yankee said:
They were regularly outfought on land
Click to expand...
  1. Being courageous and fighting to the last man has nothing to do with winning the battles. It is precisely in the losing battles that those qualities can be displayed.
  2. I never mentioned invincibility. History shows Sparta did not conquer the rest of Greece. It is you who introduced it to create an angle to better diss Sparta. It is fine that you dislike them, less so that you bring invincibility out of nowhere just deny it.
Let's get back to the comparison of MBTs.
 
riggerrob said:
avatar said:
this whole make the tank lighter should not come at the cost of armour protection . Something which this tank will validate only when it faces RPG-29s and shaped charges in an Iraq type scenario. The mobility argument is now more than a decade old in the Indian context (vis a vis the Arjun) and now it also includes air mobility - so that a tank can be airlifted by a C-17/IL-76/ whatever.
Click to expand...

All the heavy armor in the world is useless if it cannot drive to the battle field. Too much armor makes the tank too wide to drive on narrow mountain roads, or too heavy to drive across bridges. Not all nations can afford 70 ton bridges on all roads.
Click to expand...

Replace "not all" with "no" and your last sentence is probably closer to the truth. Wandering around Connecticut and the Northeast, in general, I regularly find bridges with posted weight limits. I don't do as much driving anywhere else in the US, but I'd be surprised if there aren't numerous bridges in the Appalachians, Adirondacks, Smoky Mountains, etc that would quietly collapse were one to try to drive an Abrams across it, and that many of these bridges are on the only road connecting two places one may want to travel between.

-------------------
 
1635yankee said:
riggerrob said:
avatar said:
this whole make the tank lighter should not come at the cost of armour protection . Something which this tank will validate only when it faces RPG-29s and shaped charges in an Iraq type scenario. The mobility argument is now more than a decade old in the Indian context (vis a vis the Arjun) and now it also includes air mobility - so that a tank can be airlifted by a C-17/IL-76/ whatever.
Click to expand...

All the heavy armor in the world is useless if it cannot drive to the battle field. Too much armor makes the tank too wide to drive on narrow mountain roads, or too heavy to drive across bridges. Not all nations can afford 70 ton bridges on all roads.
Click to expand...

Replace "not all" with "no" and your last sentence is probably closer to the truth. Wandering around Connecticut and the Northeast, in general, I regularly find bridges with posted weight limits. I don't do as much driving anywhere else in the US, but I'd be surprised if there aren't numerous bridges in the Appalachians, Adirondacks, Smoky Mountains, etc that would quietly collapse were one to try to drive an Abrams across it, and that many of these bridges are on the only road connecting two places one may want to travel between.

-------------------
Click to expand...
Hell, in our part of the country the roads have posted weight limits from February through April.
 
OK, odd point to make perhaps and it may have been made earlier but, in Japan they drive on e correct side of the road and you want the driver either the centre or OFF side of the road/vehicle. This has the driver on the LEFT side of the vehicle so, what gives?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom