Tank Forces Face Ax Options

[Ogumo]

The number of Ground Self-Defense Force tanks is expected to be slashed from 1,020 to fewer than 600 in the near future, with ballistic missiles and terrorism now perceived as the main threats to Japan's security.
GSDF tank forces were beefed up -- chiefly in northern Hokkaido -- during the Cold War as a deterrent against the Far East forces of the former Soviet Union.

The Seventh Division, based in Chitose, Hokkaido, is the GSDF's sole armored division. It served as a symbol of deterrence against a possible Soviet invasion.

In addition to about 180 tanks in three regiments, the division has some 600 other tracked vehicles.

The main force consists of 50-ton, Japanese-made Type 90 tanks introduced in 1990. Each has a three-member crew and a cannon that can be loaded automatically.

GSDF members still have to lay iron plates on bridges along route C, a municipal road linking the GSDF's Higashi-Chitose and Kita-Chitose camps, before tanks can move over them. Work aimed at expanding and strengthening route C began in the mid-1990s, with more than 2.4 billion yen having already been spent on the project.

Yet the GSDF's capability and equipment are under review -- a scenario that could have a major impact on the tank forces and the role they currently fulfill.

At the Finance Ministry on May 25, military critic Kensuke Ebata delivered a presentation to ministry officials focusing on missile defense and the defense industry.

"I had thought it was a private meeting involving a small number of people, but it was not. (The participants) were quite enthusiastic," Ebata said.

Five such meetings were held through the end of June, with speakers including former Deputy Prime Minister Masaharu Gotoda and an executive of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.'s aerospace division.

About 4.9 trillion yen was earmarked for defense-related expenses in fiscal 2003.

Finance Ministry debate used to center on whether Defense Agency requests fell within the budget or the procurement timetable.

There was virtually no discussion by ministry officials on why certain equipment was actually necessary, an agency official said, adding, "We are seriously concerned about the ministry's change of mind."

In the May 25 meeting, Ebata said tanks topped the list of equipment rapidly heading toward obsolescence.

Route C, for example, is the only road reinforced for tanks. Most others would have problems facilitating the rapid deployment of armored vehicles.

The Defense Agency's annual white paper last year stated that a large-scale invasion of Japan in the near future was unlikely, sparking calls for fewer tanks.

But Yutaka Shoda, commander of the Seventh Division, said: "About 20 years are required to foster commanding officers for tank forces. The same for manufacturing technologies. I do not want to see the white paper contain discussions about future security due to current threats (such as ballistic missiles or terrorism)."

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getart...n20040629f3.htm

In ways I dont agree with this. However if enemy is allowed to touch foot on japanese dirt. It is a problem. Japan's navy should best in the world but that is not the case. Japan cannot spare to lose any precious weapons. Not when surrounded with nations that have some of the largest armies in the world.

This post has been edited by Ogumo: Jun 29 2004, 11:59 AM

[barkerintokyo]

If you think about it though, no nation has ever been under an invasion in the real sense since WWII. Like George Orwell once said, the age of conventional warfare has ended. There is not going to be full scale wars where hundreds of thousands of people will die in a short amount of time. The need for ground troops is overrated.

Then again, China is a very old fashioned country. Perhaps the need to have a ground force comes from them.

[Ogumo]

Then again, China is a very old fashioned country. Perhaps the need to have a ground force comes from them.

Indeed. You can never be too careful.

[YManchun]

Whoever said 'covential war is over' is a fool. Air power is overrated. And not all armies is like the U.S., just because the U.S. won afghanistan and Iraq by over using warplanes and cruise missles, people suddenly think that all armies can win that way.

[barkerintokyo]

Conventional war, in the sense that there will be massive trenches hundreds of miles in length fighting endlessly until one army runs out of resources. This type of fighting is ceasing to end. And people began to realize this already by the end of WWII. The day of massive deaths has ended. The purpose of war is no longer to be won. The purpose of war is to exist. War keeps economies in healthy conditions. War keeps the people occupied. War gives the people an enemy. Nuclear bombs will never be used. There is no declared treaty that says so but all leaders understand the futility of using it. The importance is that they have it. They will keep these weapons until the day comes when they need it, but that day will never come. Conventional warfare is over. The new warfare is a continuous war without end, not with massive deaths, but with hit and run sort of tactics, enemies changing continuously, and all trust between nations lost.

[Ogumo]

If japan was on the mainland asia. I would disagree. However japan is a island. There are only two main ways to fight with japan. Air and navy. Now let us just say the air and navy war goes bad for japan. Now the enemy is landing on our shores. The tanks would be handy then.

[YManchun]

Conventional war, in the sense that there will be massive trenches hundreds of miles in length fighting endlessly until one army runs out of resources. This type of fighting is ceasing to end. And people began to realize this already by the end of WWII. The day of massive deaths has ended. The purpose of war is no longer to be won. The purpose of war is to exist. War keeps economies in healthy conditions. War keeps the people occupied. War gives the people an enemy. Nuclear bombs will never be used. There is no declared treaty that says so but all leaders understand the futility of using it. The importance is that they have it. They will keep these weapons until the day comes when they need it, but that day will never come. Conventional warfare is over. The new warfare is a continuous war without end, not with massive deaths, but with hit and run sort of tactics, enemies changing continuously, and all trust between nations lost.

This is the pitiful ignorance I see everyday.

The barrier between conventional and unconventional warfare is a bit complicated, but I will make it simple for you.

And people began to realize this already by the end of WWII.

Conventional war didn't end with WW2. The U.S. put too much in their A-Bomb and air power, that didn't build up their ground capabilities, the mistake of their actions showed up painfully during the korean war. What works best is combined operations, the only people who think conventional war is outdated is too ignorant of wars of other nations in post-ww2 and how the world militaries train for.

Conventional war is the use of tanks, planes, ships, etc. Its the use of equipment available to all armies. And it has shown that time and time again, in the post-ww2 world.

There are a lot alterations in the use of tactics, but conventional war is still what it is.

The purpose of war is no longer to be won. The purpose of war is to exist. War keeps economies in healthy conditions. War keeps the people occupied. War gives the people an enemy.

Wrong. The war starts because of the friction between nations, not the other way around.

Nuclear bombs will never be used. There is no declared treaty that says so but all leaders understand the futility of using it. The importance is that they have it. They will keep these weapons until the day comes when they need it, but that day will never come.

The use of Nuclear weapons is a form of non-conventional warfare.

The new warfare is a continuous war without end, not with massive deaths, but with hit and run sort of tactics, enemies changing continuously, and all trust between nations lost.

Did you get this from a movie or something?

Assymetrical warfare is not something new, and it is fought because of a non-standing armies who doesn't have the equipment available to them. It has never replaced nor will it replace traditional warfare anytime soon.

If the North Koreans start another war with us, do you think they would just hit and run? Nor would the South Korean forces hit and run also, they are trained to bunker down and use of combined ops.

This post has been edited by YManchun: Jul 1 2004, 12:08 PM

[barkerintokyo]

Read George Orwell's 1984.

By now, most people have guessed, this is probably my most favorite book of all time.

It is a little outdated, but I believe what he says holds true even for this day and age.

"War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The splitting of the intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest. In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of the Inner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones: but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink. Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world." - George Orwell

[YManchun]

You take a fictious novel written by a paranoid author with a twisted vision of the future seriously???

I'm just going to stop replying here.


btw I have read that book already, besides army ROTC-issued textbooks are much more reliable and updated.

This post has been edited by YManchun: Jul 2 2004, 09:59 AM