During that time frame, early eighties the LEO 2 was most likely the best tank in production.
Japanese New Tank TKX
- Thread starter evripide
- Start date
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I f your going to copy one, LEO 2 is not a bad option at all, considering the logistical advantages it enjoys over Abrams and Challanger.
Agreed, this still holds true today.
@Izzy
The Type 90 already features advanced multi-material armor (As always the rest is classified ).
I get the feeling that this is more a project to keep the industry running and not out of actual need.
The Type 90 is not what I would call old and it shouldn't be hard to upgrade. There hasn't been any armor upgrades so far and with it's 50 tons and 1500hp there should be plenty of reserves left even if it gets 5 tons heavier.
It already features a lot of very good electronics (including hunter-killer capabilities and auto-target tracking). Integrating a battlefield management system is nothing spectacular and shouldn't be a problem (If it hasn't been done already).
The L/44 + autoloader also offers no advantages over the current Type 90.
Only the weight comes to my mind. Are the possible 55 tons of an upgraded Type 90 really too much for Japan's needs?
Or maybe the Type 90 has some problems we don't know of. It is hard to actually get good infos about this interesting track.
The Type 90 already features advanced multi-material armor (As always the rest is classified
).I get the feeling that this is more a project to keep the industry running and not out of actual need.
The Type 90 is not what I would call old and it shouldn't be hard to upgrade. There hasn't been any armor upgrades so far and with it's 50 tons and 1500hp there should be plenty of reserves left even if it gets 5 tons heavier.
It already features a lot of very good electronics (including hunter-killer capabilities and auto-target tracking). Integrating a battlefield management system is nothing spectacular and shouldn't be a problem (If it hasn't been done already).
The L/44 + autoloader also offers no advantages over the current Type 90.
Only the weight comes to my mind. Are the possible 55 tons of an upgraded Type 90 really too much for Japan's needs?
Or maybe the Type 90 has some problems we don't know of. It is hard to actually get good infos about this interesting track.
Yes - there is no reason why you cannot tranfer over the finer details of a Type 90, NEC and Kyoto are excellant companies for electronics and armor technologies.
Last edited:
There was a comment somewhere in the official guff about weight-restricted bridges. Japan has a lot of very small roads. Although I think you may be right that this is more an industrial than a military project (that's what my partner thinks: waste of money, according to her), they've taken the opportunity to fill a gap which is about to arise in their armoured force with the retirement of the Type 74, by building a tank which can get into more obscure corners of Japan than the Type 90. It'll also remove any constraint on up-armouring the Type 90. With its compact size & small volume to protect, I would expect it to be pretty well armoured. The quoted dimensions are a bit less than a Leopard 1, but it's heavier & has armour which should have a better protection:weight ratio.@Izzy
The Type 90 already features advanced multi-material armor (As always the rest is classified
I get the feeling that this is more a project to keep the industry running and not out of actual need.
The Type 90 is not what I would call old and it shouldn't be hard to upgrade. There hasn't been any armor upgrades so far and with it's 50 tons and 1500hp there should be plenty of reserves left even if it gets 5 tons heavier.
It already features a lot of very good electronics (including hunter-killer capabilities and auto-target tracking). Integrating a battlefield management system is nothing spectacular and shouldn't be a problem (If it hasn't been done already).
The L/44 + autoloader also offers no advantages over the current Type 90.
Only the weight comes to my mind. Are the possible 55 tons of an upgraded Type 90 really too much for Japan's needs?
Or maybe the Type 90 has some problems we don't know of. It is hard to actually get good infos about this interesting track.
BTW, as far as power plant goes, I would expect the Type 90 to cope with well over 60 tons. Dunno about the transmission or suspension, though.
I can't see what problems the Type 90 might have that would be solved by this, unless there's a problem with weight limits on the suspension.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #29
I also heard about the railway capacity in Japan. Though the country is well connected by the railway system, the rail tracks are often too narrow to convey tanks. Especially, many of these are private railways, so the companies would not allow to convey the huge vehicles.
Also, technological minimalism of Japan is, probably, an important reason. Walkman, Casio,....
As you know, Almost all Type 90s are used only in Hokkaido which is a big northen island, close to Russia. That's why I am thinking the 'high end' tank will be still Type 90s and the new tank will replace Type 74s which are used in major areas of Japan, Honshu. Smaller weight, and even smaller hp/weight ratio, same weapon,...Can you sure it equip better armour than 52tonnes tank?
Also, technological minimalism of Japan is, probably, an important reason. Walkman, Casio,....
As you know, Almost all Type 90s are used only in Hokkaido which is a big northen island, close to Russia. That's why I am thinking the 'high end' tank will be still Type 90s and the new tank will replace Type 74s which are used in major areas of Japan, Honshu. Smaller weight, and even smaller hp/weight ratio, same weapon,...Can you sure it equip better armour than 52tonnes tank?
The Germans have a history of producing the best tanks in the world. From the Tiger to the Panther to the Leopard, I admire Germany's technical genius.
Let me state for the excellant achievement of Japans capability to design a tank that the only thing that even can be stated as the same set up between a Type 90 and LEO 2 is the turret armor layout, but the laminate/ceramic armor is their own design. L44 gun and breech mechanism belongs to Germany also, all other tank sub components along with propulsion and suspension systems is their own design and set up, including the auto tracker.
performance
New Member
Where are you getting your information?
Nothing about this tank is impressive. You busted up the xk-2 for some odd reason, but here you are praising the Admin: Text deleted. Language please. There are better ways to make comment and not breach forum rules on respect etc... This comment was unnecessary.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing? They seem to have packed an impressive amount into a small package.
Last edited by a moderator:
performance
New Member
And what is impressive about that?
Eckherl & swerve both of you are adamantly pro-Japanese
For some reason the internet just adores Japan doesn't it.
Perhaps because we both have some experience of the place & the people, we don't have an irrational prejudice against it, & you interpret that as being pro-Japanese.
Why is it always that Eckherl is said to be anti-Korean?
He is maybe the last guy on this board who can be accused of being that.
And I never had the feeling that he is talking down the XK-2. He stated alot of viable things about it and I always thought that he things that the Koreans managed to develop a fine piece of kit.
On the other hand I get the feeling that often enough Koreans here seem to be very touchy when it comes to Japan.
What is the problem?
The Japanese tank looks indeed interesting especially if they would decide to offer it for export. I could imagine there are some customers for a smaller but still western style tank of less than 50 tons. And if the 6,4 million US$ are right than it is not even that expensive.
As Swerve said, this track has the dimensions of a Leo 1 but with better protection, firepower and electronics. Could defenitely be a good replacement for their fleet of Type 74 while the Type 90 remains the mainstay of their forces which are stationed in more open areas.
He is maybe the last guy on this board who can be accused of being that.
And I never had the feeling that he is talking down the XK-2. He stated alot of viable things about it and I always thought that he things that the Koreans managed to develop a fine piece of kit.
On the other hand I get the feeling that often enough Koreans here seem to be very touchy when it comes to Japan.
What is the problem?
The Japanese tank looks indeed interesting especially if they would decide to offer it for export. I could imagine there are some customers for a smaller but still western style tank of less than 50 tons. And if the 6,4 million US$ are right than it is not even that expensive.
As Swerve said, this track has the dimensions of a Leo 1 but with better protection, firepower and electronics. Could defenitely be a good replacement for their fleet of Type 74 while the Type 90 remains the mainstay of their forces which are stationed in more open areas.
Hmm, I really can't really make friends with the idea that the gunner's primary optic should be that monitor instead of a mono-/binocular eyepiece. That will probably affect the gunners aiming in a negative way when firing on the move, especially in rougher terrain. Are there already tanks out there with a monitor instead of a eyepiece?
Last edited:
You need to have a bit of a change in your attitude within the body of this post. I don't care what your personal issues are with the Japanese, but you will keep them out of this topic
In absolute terms, it is irrelevant what Eckherl and Swerve think about the Japanese, they obviously don't have a problem with them or their technology. You do.
Deal with it internally, but do not let it manifest itself in your replies as it has no bearing on a technical discussion.
I have issued one warning already, this one is now officially your second.
I do not want to see anyone banned when it can be avoided, but your failure to heed my initial advice is colouring my willingness to cut you some slack.
A third warning will result in you being banned for a period of time. This is completely avoidable. It's up to you.
My information is based on many years of research and actually serving on tanks and in other positions that would allow my mind to focus and wander around and look at different countries capabilities in the armor field, some of those countries I have visited first hand. This doesn`t mean that I walk around thinking that I know everything, and I am not afraid to admit it when I am wrong so if you have something that you would like to offer instead of making a wrongful accusation against me and Swerve then I am willing to read what you write.
Okay - Countries that have researched and or developed a 140mm maingun would include the following:
Germany
UK
France
U.S
Israel
ROK
Japan
Ukraine
There could be others that I am not fully aware of, reasoning behind research and developing would be because of the following reasons:
Advancements in armor materials
ETC programs have not matured fully, at least with some countries, and the cost factor.
Engagement time sequences when engaging threat vehicles, engaging a tank 20 years ago at 2,000 meters is alot different today due to FCS advancements, propulsion systems, suspension and armor protection levels, so the ultimate goal is to engage at maximum effective maingun range with a high probability of a 1st shot kill before your opponent can close the gap to do all kinds of mean nasty things to you. Please keep in mind that we are talking future threats, not present, so look for breech and recoil mechanism being able to have the ability to offer either a 120mm or 140mm.
Russia and China are also working on larger maingun calibers, so this could be a factor also.
As far as armor protection capabilities look up Kyoto Ceramic technologies, the side modular armor does look like the concept that is used on a Leclerc, but I would also agree with Waylander that the front turret armor looks alot like a Leo2A5/6 or even a little like a Canadian Leo1 with their latest armor package.
If there is something a little more specific that I can answer or if their is something that you disagree with I am more than willing to give you the courtesy and listen.
PS - the only part of Korea that I have a dislike for would be North Korea, and that is totally for their government, not the people.
Why would it cause a issue, sights have really advanced to a stage that you do not have excessive polarity (ghost image) between the reticle and target, this was a slight issue on earlier designed thermal sights. China Type 99 is one tank that has similar set up, Ukraine T-84 also.