QUOTE(Kimis @ Feb 17 2008, 04:12 PM) [snapback]3504842[/snapback]
I'm skeptic about Japanese building new kind of tank, their landscape is not good for tanks, may be they are trying to deploy in foreign lands? or arming themselves for another war?
Even though Japan isn't a good country for armored warfare like, say, in Eastern Europe with lots of open spaces, tanks still do have a lot of use, primarily the shock value and its ability to support infantryman both offensively (Nothing brings down a building like a HEAT fired at it from 200 yards away. Of course, that's not mentioning that the tank can be used as a distraction to pin down the enemy while friendly infantry can flank.) and defensively. (There is no real effective way of getting past a tank unless you flank it, call in for CAS or bring in a tank of your own.) The Type 10 is suited for the Japanese terrain, which limits most tank engagements to confined areas and rough terrains.
QUOTE(KJlost @ Feb 17 2008, 11:46 PM) [snapback]3505673[/snapback]
It's true that the TK-X does have some odd features. It is light enough that it could be easily transported over Japanese rail system without straining it like the Type90 did. It also appears that TK-X is just the right weight to be airlifted at base load state with the medium transports Japan has.
I've been wondering about the firepower and the armor of that thing though. In terms of firepower, it has no real improvement over the current Type90. Of course the FCS is going to better and all that, but the gun itself is not the hyper-velocity type featured on tanks like the Leopard2A6 or the XK2. Japan could develope or import improved ammunitions of course, but that's still a limited improvement. In the near future, her neighbors will field MBTs that would certainly outclass it in terms of firepower. South Korean XK-2 is already there, and Russia is said to have unveiled the T-95. China will soon follow.
I'm also wondering about the size and armor of TK-X as well. Even without the spec release, it's easy to tell that he TK-X is a very compact tank. It has 5 wheels on the tracks instead of the usual 6, making the chassis rather short. This lets them drop weight, but at the cost of what? Many believe that the armor was compromised to reduce the weight, but I doubt it. The turret itself appears to have been fitted with extensive protection frontally and to the sides. The armor of the chasses might have been reduced slightly to compromise, but that's impossible to tell.
Some people have theorized that TK-X has reduced weight and size by sacrificing lot of crew comfort and fuel. We'll see what the operational range of this thing is, but I think it makes a bit of sense.
I do however scoff at the recent videa comparison between TK-X firing test and the XK2's. Like I've said, XK2 features L-55 hyper-velocity gun with greater propellent power. TK-X has the more traditional L-44 120mm gun. We know for a fact that there was some delay during TK-X development because of the shock issue during the main gun discharge. They had to put a great deal of effort into reducing the shock of the main gun because of the lighter chassis. To make this look like some great Japanese achievement.... They always talk so big whenever a new tank is featured by Japan. Happened ith Type 74, happened with Type 90, and it's happening again with TK-X. They've never lived up to their hype the last two times.
There were about four prototype guns designed for the Type 10, from L44, L50 to L55. I'm not sure which one they will use.
And, honestly, Japanese equipment have been overrated for the most part, ever since World War II.
QUOTE(Kimis @ Feb 18 2008, 12:08 AM) [snapback]3505706[/snapback]
Chk this out : http://bemil.chosun.com/brd/view.html?tb=B...&num=102265
This guy believes Japan's new tank have problem and not perfect comparing to Korea's BP
This is an expected, and not surprising, bashing over whether K2 or Type 10 is better than another on YouTube. The video focuses on the recoil on the tank from the force of the gun, and it interprets the Type 10 to be "better" by showing that it has less recoil that K2 due to the suspension. The problem is, the creator didn't realize that the K2 uses the L55, while the Type 10 uses L44. L55 is, obviously, more powerful and has higher recoil than the L44, so the extra kickback is expected. And, at the moment, the K2 is using semi-active suspension, while the Type 10 uses active suspension. This will change, though, since the production K2 will be equipped with active suspension of its own. And you also have to notice the gun stabilization, too, because K2's barrel remains relatively stable when firing, with the chassis rocking back and forth, while the Type 10's chassis remains more stable than while its barrel is locked to the turret. (I have no idea why they would lock the gun to the turret when firing, unless this is some sort of a way to solve the problem with Type 10's lighter weight to counter the L44's recoil, which is unlikely.) That's not mentioning that K2 has longer chassis than the Type 10, and you have to take the weight balance into consideration.
I would like to see the Type 10 firing the L55 and find out the actual result from the recoil. I wouldn't be surprised at all if I found it to be no better than K2's.