Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

Er, why bother with touch panels? Standard milspec hardened screens should suffice. Actually, the connection with Eyefinity came up because one of the shots purported to be the inside of TK-X (Type-10 prototype) showed three monitors dangling around the TC position. So they already did put the monitors in, it's just that right now they're all specialized.

 

Touch panels are more intuitive and direct....though, not very hardened as I say.

 

What I'm suggesting is to redesign the display to be a bit like an FPS or WoT. Minimap on one corner with option to enlarge to one screen, simplified status indicator on opposite corner, again with option to enlarge to fill another screen to provide detailed info. Commlink indicators middle. Virtual buttons set up all around. Give TC a trackball, or a joystick with HAT switch, so he can click stuff on the screen. Most of the time primary screen real estate should be taken up by camera view, turning them into oversized vision blocks.

 

Yeah, I get that. Seems like a good thought process on the displays. I wonder if a stylus would be more appropriate and durable....loose the stylus though, hmm. MFDs can take time getting used to but that's what training is for. The Tesla Pods for the old Battletech game were rather nice, but you could quickly get overloaded with information to manage. Training/Practice time again though. The biggest complaint I had was only having a front view and no side views.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 336
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest JamesG123

Er, why bother with touch panels?

 

Literally, "Point and shoot", and "drag and drop" calls for fire. etc.

 

But no, they would never survive your average knuckle dragging tanker and the nasty, dirty environment of an AFV interior.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • 2 years later...

This might seem a silly question but still. How do the external sensors stand up to punishment in an urban setting? I realise that they wouldn't have been put on the vehicle if they weren't hardened sufficiently but the question, in my mind still arises. Does the Merkava 4 have comparable system? If so how has it stood up? The question could be posed for any modern vehicle in a urban scenario. Have they been shown to be robust enough

Edited by Ifor
Link to post
Share on other sites

This might seem a silly question but still. How do the external sensors stand up to punishment in an urban setting? I realise that they wouldn't have been put on the vehicle if they weren't hardened sufficiently but the question, in my mind still arises. Does the Merkava 4 have comparable system? If so how has it stood up? The question could be posed for any modern vehicle in a urban scenario. Have they been shown to be robust enough

 

I would imagine they could get shot up. But that would result only in partial visual damage. But maybe they are mostly bullet proof up to 8mm.

 

 

A video showing a mobility comparison between the Type 10, Type 90, and Type 74. Comparison made in:

 

-turret rotation speed

-forward speed

-reverse speed

-slalom driving speed

-hull rotation speed

 

From the video, some points:

While the Type 10 has a smaller hull than the Type 90, the modules mounted on the Type 10 turret make it look big compared to the Type 90. The Type 90 turret rotates slow, even slower than the Type 74, because of the heavy turret but rotates smoothly. While the Type 90 with 1500hp engine weighs 50 tons and the Type 10 with 1200hp engine weighs 44 tons, the Types 10's continuously viable transmission adds to its acceleration speed advantage. The Type 10 is the first tank in the world to have a continuously viable transmission. The Type 10 is able to do slalom maneuvers while attacking.

 

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this video several month ago.

  • It is too bad that mobility comparison between the Type 90 and the Type 10 is not fair : the first must drive on snowy grass and the latter on asphalt.
  • I was surprised to see how the Type 74 turret still rotates faster than the one of its successor.

This is still an interesting video.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this video several month ago.

  • It is too bad that mobility comparison between the Type 90 and the Type 10 is not fair : the first must drive on snowy grass and the latter on asphalt.
  • I was surprised to see how the Type 74 turret still rotates faster than the one of its successor.

This is still an interesting video.

 

Yep, some one in the comments section also said that only the Type 10 was not in the snow during the dash run. So it's either (1) the difference between between the snow path and the slushy road is not worth the fuss, or (2) the video's true purpose is to advertise how super wonderfully great the Type 10 is.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read through Wikipedia's article on the Type 10 a few times now, it was the first bit of information I had seen calling it anything other than TK-X or MBT-X designation.

 

What surprises me the most in this discussion as that the Type 10 is supposed to replace all of the older tanks still in service with the JGSDF. While I can at least assume there's a number of Type 74's kicking around, I thought the Type 61 would be long since removed from any active duty at all - perhaps not even used for training anymore these days? It'd make a great gate guardian vehicle though.

 

The fact that the Type 90 cannot contra-rotate its tracks is curious. Are there any current Western MBT's which are unable to do this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a mid term defense equipment plan released in 2014. http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/agenda/guideline/2014/pdf/chuki_seibi26-30.pdf

 

Currently 66 Type 10s have been made. 44 more are planned by 2018 making 100 Type 10 tanks. The plan is to cut the number of tanks down to as low as 300. The Type 74s have been getting withdrawn at a fast rate, said at a rate of 40 tanks per year in the Japanese wiki. So I guess by 2018, it'll be 100 Type 10s and 200+ Type 90s, mostly to be in Kyushu and Hokkaido. The Japanese are going for a more mobile design military. That's where those new C-2 transport planes come in. The cut in tank power will probably be seen to be made up with the Maneuver Combat Vehicle (the 8 wheeler with the 105mm cannon). 99 of those are planned.

 

Something else that caught my eye in the plan, not too surprising but, seems beyond consideration now and likely to be added by 2018: 52 AAV7s, 17 Ospreys, and 28 F-35As

Link to post
Share on other sites

This might seem a silly question but still. How do the external sensors stand up to punishment in an urban setting? I realise that they wouldn't have been put on the vehicle if they weren't hardened sufficiently but the question, in my mind still arises. Does the Merkava 4 have comparable system? If so how has it stood up? The question could be posed for any modern vehicle in a urban scenario. Have they been shown to be robust enough

Judging by the condition of the Syrian T-72 and other accounts I have read about urban fighting, none of it will last long and nowwhere enough spares will be in stock.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do these unit numbers seem a bit low to anyone else, given Japan's wealth and industry?

 

I understand there's an agreement for the United States to assist in Japan's defense, but such agreements haven't worked very well for some other countries lately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This might seem a silly question but still. How do the external sensors stand up to punishment in an urban setting? I realise that they wouldn't have been put on the vehicle if they weren't hardened sufficiently but the question, in my mind still arises. Does the Merkava 4 have comparable system? If so how has it stood up? The question could be posed for any modern vehicle in a urban scenario. Have they been shown to be robust enough

Judging by the condition of the Syrian T-72 and other accounts I have read about urban fighting, none of it will last long and nowwhere enough spares will be in stock.

 

I read that during the fighting for Seoul in 1950, Marine M26s had their exteriors scoured clean by North Korean machine gun fire; antennae, lights, periscopes--everything!

Edited by shep854
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do these unit numbers seem a bit low to anyone else, given Japan's wealth and industry?

 

I understand there's an agreement for the United States to assist in Japan's defense, but such agreements haven't worked very well for some other countries lately.

 

I do agree they do seem quite low. Then again, with only 560 Type 61's having been produced (not sure on the production numbers of Type 74's or 90's), maybe there's other factors at play here rather than sheer numbers.

 

Just how much of Japan's surface area is viable for MBT operation? I've never been there myself so couldn't say how extensive the road networks are around the maintainous regions etc. Perhaps a total MBT count of 300, being a mix of Type 10 and Type 90, is enough for their geography and how they're deployed?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do these unit numbers seem a bit low to anyone else, given Japan's wealth and industry?

 

I understand there's an agreement for the United States to assist in Japan's defense, but such agreements haven't worked very well for some other countries lately.

 

Not really considering the JGSDF's sole mission is based on defence of the home islands. Japanese doctrine depends on the armoured being easily transportable (The dimensions of Type 61, 74, and I think 10s are constrained by rail tunnels) to where they are needed for rapid deployment to maximize numbers. Considering the fact that if the enemy lands on Japan in large numbers, the battle is pretty desperate as the navy and air force have failed in their mission, you'd have to admit that armour is lower on the totem pole than for most countries.

 

Apart from the Kanto plain (Tokyo area) and Hokkaido (Where the bulk of the Type 90s are based), very little of Japan is tank country, so the need for large amounts of armour is moot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Japanese armour, I have to wonder what they were thinking with the Type 61. It was undergunned and had no armour even while it was being designed. I know they wanted to kickstart their defence industries with the design and building of the Type 61, but geez, at least try to put an L7 on it instead of that puny 90mm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Japanese armour, I have to wonder what they were thinking with the Type 61. It was undergunned and had no armour even while it was being designed. I know they wanted to kickstart their defence industries with the design and building of the Type 61, but geez, at least try to put an L7 on it instead of that puny 90mm.

 

Well quoting what I've read from the always 100% accurate Wikipedia:

 

"The final constraint was due to the light body build of Japanese people at that time, after examining the M36 Jackson, 90 millimeter ammunition was felt to be the upper limit of what the average Japanese tanker could handle effectively. Additionally due to the mountainous landscape of Japan, it was unlikely that long range engagements would occur frequently and it was thought that a 90 milimeter gun would be sufficient."

 

This mention of an M36 is curious. I'd always heard previous to this that the Type 61 was actually modelled (somewhat) on the M47 Patton, a tank which the JGSDF was offered. If the same article is accurate, neither the M46 or M47 purchase offer was taken up and the firm of Mitsubishi designed their own vehicle, culiminating in the Type 61. I am not entirely sure if an L7 would have fitted in the turret?

 

Did they ever receive any M24 Chaffee light tanks?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from the Kanto plain (Tokyo area) and Hokkaido (Where the bulk of the Type 90s are based), very little of Japan is tank country, so the need for large amounts of armour is moot.

I've seen quite a lot of the Kanto plain, & I think it's lousy tank country. Most of it is taken up by Greater Tokyo, & there's not much open land left.

Link to post
Share on other sites

M24s also kicked Rodan's ass.

 

Do not belittle the 90mm. It handled all the threat armor until T-64. The fielding of reliable HEAT ammo remained problematic past the 1962 inserve date, but APC was fine and if desired APDS and HVAP could be bought or produced. As noted above, the terrain meant that tk-tk engagement ranges would be short, so engineering prep of the battle would make a big difference.

 

The lack of suitable bridges, tunnels and roads played both ways, so T-10s were not likely to show up, even if the navies and air support failed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Between 1974 and 1989, 873 Type 74s were made. And later 341 Type 90s were made.

 

The Japanese discussed the idea of doing either up gunning the Type 61 to the 105 or to just design a whole new tank. They went with the new tank route.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...