Japanese New Tank TKX

[Waylander]

I think he thought about your head shacking around during a rough cross country ride.
It could be harder to focuss your view onto a screen without your head(neck) being supported.
When using eyepieces you can press your head against them for additional stability (and sometimes ram your forehead into it ).

I don't know if this really makes a difference and would not try to argue against it before I meet somebody who used both (screen and eyepiece).

 

[DavidDCM]

Yeah, that was what I meant. If I could not have "locked" myself into my seat by pressing my head against the eyepiece and my back against the backrest it often would have been really difficult to focus on the target as well as keep my hands still.

 

[eckherl]

Ahh - okay I can see his point, It would be I think a matter of preference with some gunners. I had a gunner that actually wore a left eye shield and he stated that it helped him shoot better, he never was able to convince me of that but hey, he hit everything that he aimed at so I left him alone and called him Capt. Cook.nfloorl:

But yes - you can get tossed around quite a bit while moving cross country, especially with a new rookie driver and I have gathered a few scars along the way. Eye and brow pads can be a good thing.

 

[Waylander]

Some people just cannot really good close just one of their eyes and concentrate on the other one.

One of our gunners also had this problem and also had to shield one of his eyes during small arms training (He really like the red dot of the G36). Due to the binocular eyepiece of the Leo he hadn't this problem as a gunner.

But as I said I can also just guess what is better and one has to use it before judging about it.

A screen should defenitely be better during long phases of observation duty.

 

[Distiller]

The screen is the way to go. Offers all kind of options for sensor and information overlays.


Something else 1: I like that hydraulic suspension. Who did it first? Kampfpanzer 70? Anyway, quite useful I think. BUT: What about reliability? Any experiences?


Something else 2: Lighter tanks are the way to go. Putting the "Medium" instead of "Main" in MBT. 70 metric ton Stalin-esque monsters are a dead end.


And finally: What is the Japanese operational concept behind their tank formations? I mean, they are an island. And expeditionary warfare is still a political no-no (and no logistics available anyway). Do they think that somebody could amphib or para assault them? And even if you'd plan for that possibility wouldn't be some cavalry formation, say with CV90 class vehicles be enough to fight off any threat?

I like that tank, btw.

 

[Waylander]

The Type 90 has a hybrid suspension. I think the were satisfied enough with the hydraulic part of it to go fully hyraulic with the new design.

A CV90120 is not going to offer the same protection as this tank but it is worth to think about to use a lighter tank hunter on the same chassis as your current IFV to reduce the logistical footprint.
If you have no concerns of stretching your logistical system too much it doesn't make that much sense to go with a tank hunter on your IFV chassis.

In this thread your questions about deployment have been adressed (Thanks to our informed members ) and it looks like the Type 90 is going to be the heavyweight (Or better remains to be it) which covers the more open northern areas against a possible agression while the lighter design is going to support the defense in the mountaineous regions where everything is a little bit narrow and the bridges are not that strong. This role is currently fullfilled by the Type 74.

And the JGSDF are already much smaller than the JASDF or JMSDF which fits into their situation as an island nation. Nevertheless one still needs to have a well trained and equipped ground force to cover every aspect of a potential defense of an island even if this force is naturally smaller than the other branches.

 

[eckherl]

The screen is the way to go. Offers all kind of options for sensor and information overlays.


Something else 1: I like that hydraulic suspension. Who did it first? Kampfpanzer 70? Anyway, quite useful I think. BUT: What about reliability? Any experiences?


Something else 2: Lighter tanks are the way to go. Putting the "Medium" instead of "Main" in MBT. 70 metric ton Stalin-esque monsters are a dead end.


And finally: What is the Japanese operational concept behind their tank formations? I mean, they are an island. And expeditionary warfare is still a political no-no (and no logistics available anyway). Do they think that somebody could amphib or para assault them? And even if you'd plan for that possibility wouldn't be some cavalry formation, say with CV90 class vehicles be enough to fight off any threat?

I like that tank, btw.

For the suspension question one must ask, when was the type 74 designed versus a MBT 70. For that type of terrian in Japan the hydro suspension is a good idea, as you most likely know, ROK has it also on the K1 (K88) thru to the K2 and they just love it, Japan seems to be content with it also seeings how this will still be featured on their newest tank project. So reliability seems to be not the issue with either countries.

 

[Offensive]

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.

Admin. Text deleted. Completely off topic and breaches forum guidelines. Formal warning issued.

 

[Offensive]

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.

Admin: Text deleted. You are way out of line. Read the Forum Rules. Esp the ones relating to respect. Both of the individuals you seek to malign have established and demonstrated competency. You on the other hand have wandered in and started a "drive by" based on some perceived association to commentary being eugenics based.

Lift your game. 2nd Formal warning issued.

Im sorry but this tank is a joke, and I find it amusing that swerve and you are praising it 5 times per page.

 

[swerve]

Hmm. An eerily familiar tone & posting style, & still contributing nothing to the discussion.

 

[Waylander]

Hmmm, I think I have a dejavú...

Back to topic.

The last info I have about their ammo is that they are using license produced DM-33 and DM-12 for their 120mm L/44s.
Is this still the case or have they switched to something else like DM43/53/63, KEW-1/2 or something totally different?

 

[DavidDCM]

I don't wanna beat a dead horse with the "screen vs. eyepiece" discussion, but I still wonder how the problem with the shaky head is solved in those tanks? Do they just accept it, or do they have another solution that somehow avoids the need of an eyepiece yet still locks the gunner into position?

 

[eckherl]

Enough with the bullshit. How many times are you going to claim your vast knowledge of Korea and your so called family there afterwards turn around and talk shit?

Im not even talking solely about these forums. I've seen you on forums like military photo, tank net. I remember one guy destroyed you when you tried to put down the tank and you started screaming about it.

Im sorry but this tank is a joke, and I find it amusing that swerve and you are praising it 5 times per page.

What does Korea have to do with this discussion, your comments are suspect. If that is your opinion of me then that is okay, you are entitled to think what you want.

 

[eckherl]

I don't wanna beat a dead horse with the "screen vs. eyepiece" discussion, but I still wonder how the problem with the shaky head is solved in those tanks? Do they just accept it, or do they have another solution that somehow avoids the need of an eyepiece yet still locks the gunner into position?

The sighting systems are fully stabilized in both axis by using gyros.

 

[eckherl]

Hmmm, I think I have a dejavú...

Back to topic.

The last info I have about their ammo is that they are using license produced DM-33 and DM-12 for their 120mm L/44s.
Is this still the case or have they switched to something else like DM43/53/63, KEW-1/2 or something totally different?

I do not know the current KE projectile but will do some digging.

 

[Waylander]

He is talking about the shacking head. Remember the discussion some posts ago?

And thanks for your effort concerning the ammo.

 

[eckherl]

He is talking about the shacking head. Remember the discussion some posts ago?

And thanks for your effort concerning the ammo.

Maybe we can get decked out with gyros to so that we can go with the flow of the vehicle.nfloorl: Just kidding, it does take some coordination, time and practice to get used to it I would amagine.

 

[DavidDCM]

Maybe we can get decked out with gyros to so that we can go with the flow of the vehicle.nfloorl:

Only if this comes with a eye-inbuilt LRF and smoke dischargers in the arse

Just kidding, it does take some coordination, time and practice to get used to it I would amagine.

So, basically, they make a compromise and try to get along with it. I don't know, I still see no basic advantage in this, but then as long as I didn't try it out myself (which will probably never happen), I wont complain. Nonetheless, there were lots of situations were I would not have hit anything if I could not have locked myself into position with all my power, which would have been impossible with an eyepiece...

 

[eckherl]

@Waylander

KE projectiles used by Type 90 - DM43A1

 

[eckherl]

Only if this comes with a eye-inbuilt LRF and smoke dischargers in the arse



So, basically, they make a compromise and try to get along with it. I don't know, I still see no basic advantage in this, but then as long as I didn't try it out myself (which will probably never happen), I wont complain. Nonetheless, there were lots of situations were I would not have hit anything if I could not have locked myself into position with all my power, which would have been impossible with an eyepiece...

You could also look at the benefits of target identification and scanning the battlefield with a full screen optic by using both eyes thus eliminating tunnel vision which is a concern when using one eye. Battlefield awareness should be greatly increased, especially in thermal mode.