Shin godzilla

Like most japanese tanks

Technically true lol

@@jasonburke5503 and ww2 with there tin cans

Inb4 zilla

And that's why they have the Type 16 Manoeuvre Combat Vehicle. Wheeled "Tanks" are perfect for mobility.

To some extent, but I still hate that saying. Plenty of tanks were just genuinely bad because they were either built for a shit doctrine, built in violation of a doctrine, or simply outdone by a tank that did everything better.

Yeah, what if the specified design is bad?

Japan pays priority to Navy and Airforce.

Yep Japan Doctrine is based on force of Navy and Airforce to stop enemy (China) from landing on their mainland, if enemy manages to land their main island its mostly gg and ground units are there just to buy time.

Good point. Looking at the relative weights of the four tank types, it certainly seems as if Type 10 was intended to fill the roles of the earlier tanks.

In a way similar to the Leopard 2 iirc, since Leo 2s are supposed to replace the M48 Pattons and fight along side Leo 1s or something like that

Type 61 is not used

Come on, all Type 61 tanks have been decommissioned over 20 years ago!

Type 61 retired in 2000.

Not really work against combined arm where there are aerial and satellite monitoring. The only possible use for the type tank is for mass production to outnumber the enemies. Which is why its simple in design.

@@RandomPerson-tz7wk there's a reason I feel things are this way because the presence of the American military in Japan is a guaranteed defence against said combined arms in the event of an invasion.

*Zimbabwe official

to know more about the purpose of how these "weak armored vehicles" are supposed to work correctly, watch two Videos made by Battle order who had done videos on Rapid deployment and Future new home islands defence strategy.

@@kamovka2317 I'm sorry, what's zimbabwe? I've only heard of Rhodesia.

M18 Hellcat: "Finally, a worthy opponent! Our battle will be legendary!"

it threw tracks a lot in shows, it cant even drift reliably ((((

The Tank and the Furious: Tokio Drift.

@@zarlev9083 ''Alot'' like wow it literally only happened once lol

@@i_nameless_i-jgsdf Either I probably saw the same one from different angles or it was something noticable that it got attention

Well old saying is Big things swing on small Hinges .

@@williamdodds1394 lol no

Yeah but it's effectiveness against modern shoulder fired rockets used by China is limited to say the least

Would it "greatly"? Because modern AT missile warhead would penetrate it like paper and would retain more than enough capability to pierce side armor twice over. Hell, I wouldn't bet on it stopping even modern RPG-7 warheads which is kinda weak...

@@KuK137 im no expert, but im pretty sure spaced armor works against heat warheads. How is this any differen from the spaced armor on an mrap? Which i believe was pretty effective at stopping rpgs.

That's why i stopped playing WT :P Too much grind

The biggest problem is WT, it is almost fun

Why would you subject yourself to the utter masochism of the entire Japanese tech tree in the first place?

Imagine grinding the Japanese tech tree.

@@johnschmidtz5337 Yea, even with a Premium the grind is just too much. I Researched German Tech Tree until Leopard 2A5, and even Leopard 2PL, but i just didn't have the SL to buy them but neither wanted to buy a premium account again for the Top Tier experience which quite sucks in this Game ngl. It's almost fun `(*>﹏

True dat

Two points. Add-on armor and if your tank is getting hit from the side, you’re already fucked.

​@@jesusofbullets Add-on armor is very heavy, nobody would remove add-on armor if they don't have a good reason like air transport weight limit. Besides, it is designed to fight on islands and urban area, so infantry flanking and ambush are unavoidable.

@@jesusofbullets The type 10 has no appliqué armour Like TUSK or OES but yes. If these things are getting shot in the side there doing something horribly wrong.

@@joelau2383 It’s removable for transport via train or over bridges. The Type 10 was designed to be useable over more bridges than the Type 74 or 90.

Thanks you helped a lot

Thanks for the translation mate!!!

Thanks for the translation, I found it on one forum where a guy claimed that it states "side armor modules" so I was not sure if he was correct since he seemed a bit biased in the way he was talking about it :)

Keep in mind though that this is not the official drawing, the tank is still very classified. That drawing is only made for a magazine and it is based on artist guesses and imaginations. So it should not be taken as a reference to the real vehicle, it is irrelevant.

@@i_nameless_i-jgsdf Ok then, dully noted, thanks for the info

Type-10's composite armor is actually far heavier than Type-90's.

where are those leak if you mind sharing?

They cut down 3 tons of electronics from 8 tons to 5 tons!

​​@@blahblah7720probably in the war thunder gaming forum since most if not all leaks happen in the war thunder forum Edit: I am a year late so sorry for the video did not get recommended for me until now

I'm tired of the argument that the Type 10 has thin armor because it's light.

Russia?? Really??

@@tonyjoka2346 well just out of no where speculation.. lmao

@@tonyjoka2346 ukraine intensifies...

@@madtechnocrat9234 unrealistic

@@tonyjoka2346 i asure you russian invasion of ukraine is very realistic.

Actually Japan has already modified the constitution to allow export of military equipment like this. And there are rumors about Brazil showing interest in Type 10

I mean, countries like the Philippines could use a tank like that.

@@mayuri4184 True; though I would think that something like the M8 AGS or the Stingray (basically any modern LT) would suit the Philippines best. There's nothing in the country that would necessitate the firepower and protection of a full MBT. Plus, getting an 20-25 ton vehicle between all the islands is much easier/cheaper than the 44 tons of the Type 10. ;)

@@gabrielpalileo3294 They DID buy 18 ASCOD IFV's that were modified to become 105 mm gun-carrying light tanks.

@@hendi1571 That only allows them to send non combative equipment only. not any direct offense weapons. that's why Helicopters , patrol crafts and APCs are the best choice.

Exactly. The armor may be garbage, but protection against 14.5mm and lobbing 120mm SAPHEI is one mean threat when the enemy must land amphibiously with little if any armor that can defeat said vehicle. Who cares if 2A42 gun can knock it out, if the enemy can't have those, and holy dog shit they're shooting 120mm at us direct fire. It's built for a specific niche.

@@prfwrx2497 yeah it definitely is built for this specific case. The problem then becomes rpgs and atgms. Practically any man portable anti tank weapon should be able to get through the side of the hull or turret on the type 10

@@poopstick924 while things like rpgs and atgms might pose a threat to the sides of the type 10, the main goal of the Jsdf is defense of the home islands. Meaning the type 10 will almost always be in a defensive position with its sides likely secure. That is unless Japan decides to send the type 10 into overseas head to head combat with the enemy in an urban environment. That is where the type 10 would probably fail.

@@derritter3873 if all goes according to plan, then yeah the flanks will be secured. But we all know how that can end up. In any case, it definitely is much better to have armor than to not have armor and the type 10 is great for what it needs to be

I mean that sounds well meaning in concept but Type 10 is only 5 tons lighter than Type 90. The idea was the armor would be completely dismounted and moved via rail car or a flat bed truck across country however there isn't any instances of this being done and all Type 10's are still based I'm Hokaido just like the Type 90. If anything the Type 16 filled the role the Type 10 was supposed to fill as a rapid reaction tank able to move with easy across Japan's rural area's

Lol mountains are not the only place for tank battles it can be anywhere so tank must be always ready

@@ice-tgaming4609 yeah but all tanks have dogshit side armor anyways so why even bother

Even in mountains, a RPG can hit you by the side.

@@innerlight7018 In proper combined operations, infantry are not getting a side shot on a properly operated tank working in tandem with infantry. In mountainous terrain, that becomes even less possible especially when the defenders have the home advantage. The U.S. didn't send their Abrams into the mountains to root out insurgents, they sent infantry and smaller wheeled vehicles as support with tons of helicopters.

Actually in mountains it is extremely easy to flank enemy.

There plans for additional armor on the sides of the Type 10, they’re just not fielded yet.

It could be possible, though i doubt Japan will develop armor modules for their tanks soon. Unless threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or South Korea becomes very serious then they have no reason to make them.

It is possible, there are even heavy upgrades for M60 tanks which offer more protection than current Type 10 like Sabra tanks.

yes actually the developer in one of the interview mentioned about how era and composite armor can be added to the side hull. This would increase the weight of the tank to 48 tons

@@ggoddkkiller1342 they need to revive M60-2000 project. Countries with a whole fleet of M60s and M48s probably could benefit from this upgrade.

it's to do with the modular composite armour for the tank. the type 10 was made so that the armour is detachable so that they can easily transport it alongside it's armour around the country. the 40 ton version is a stripped down version without a lot of the composites on that normally makes up it's armour, the 44 ton version is the most common one to see, most of the pics in the video was of the 44 ton version. we don't know anything about the 48 ton version since as to my knowledge it has never been shown, but only talked about by the jsdf, could be a work in progress and maybe have an aps system on it.

Actually it was developed to surpass Type-90 in every category while being lighter. And it does so.

It is planned to get extra armor packages.

Like what the comment above me says, they are planning extra armor packages for the type 10, but they need to keep its weight down enough that it’s able to use Japan’s infrastructure like bridges.

@Waldel Martell Not always, enemies liked to keep bridges and Defenders always destroy it before the enemy arrives. There's a lot of cases in WW2 that bridges don't get destroyed until the enemy is within the line of sight.

@Waldel Martell ik that but what I meant is in the case Japan is ever attacked for whatever reason, in the initial stage, the type 10s, as well as the type 74s and type 16s would be able to get to a place getting attacked very quickly. On the other hand, the type 90 is just too heavy for the bridges in Japan and would break them. That also means that if enemy tanks somehow made there way onto Japan’a home islands, there tanks wouldn’t be able to go over the Japanese bridges as almost all other mbts are heavier than even the type 90. Meaning any enemy would have to use lighter vehicles in Japan like ifvs, which wouldn’t fare well against the type 10. Imma stop here before I end up writing like a whole essay.

​@Jjohnno 87 It's just a fancy way to name a lighter steel which Leclerc's have been using from the get-go. Just a quote from someone. "I dislike the name “nano-crystalline steel” because it conveys the idea that there is some form of super-advanced nanotechnology involved in this type of material, whereas it really is just random steel treated differently to alter its grain structure. In essence, it is just a new generation of steel plates with a fancy marketing."

It have the same weight as a T-90m that have way better protection, same mobility and firepower (maybe even better firepower considering guided missiles)

@@tsorevitch2409 Interior space is your answer for that. The T-90 is relatively cramped compared to the Type 10.

@@matthewg.s.8728 it's a price you have to pay to Make protected tank with reasonable weight.

@@tsorevitch2409 Type-10 is better mobility wise

Yes. The Self-Defense Forces are basically for intercepting enemies, and tanks are also for ambushing like strv103. It lacks side armor because it is not expected to aggressively advance into enemy territory. Instead, frontal armor and shooting systems are excellent at covering an inadequate number of tanks.

Tanks designed on principles of defense are abrams, leopard 2. Huge, heavy, well defended, with enough ammunition for prolonged firefight. Tanks designed for offensive actions are small, light, mobile, capable to be easily transported by sea/railroad, check T-80 as example. You got the idea

@@rageofmankind Not really, no. It would depend on what defensive doctrine the tank was designed for. It's more a question of static versus dynamic. Most western tanks are well balanced to be a jack of all trades and generally support infantry and other mechanized units. They need the armor to potentially push a dug in enemy without making it absolutely suicidal for the tank crew. They can work well as a static defense with heavy armor, but a static defense can be circumvented and gone around. Some of the best defense is a dynamic defense where mobility and information is king. It's about being in the right place at the right time for a defense and then relocating quickly to the next point. They don't need or even want a long deployment time for this type of work. You want to be constantly rotating units in and out of the fighting to keep them rested and highly efficient while wearing down your enemy. The theory is that you have your tanks engaging the enemy at a key defensive point and force a route and have your surviving units return to a nearby base for refit and rest while another unit clocks in to take the next shift. Even the U.S. tries to do this when it can as it's much cheaper, easier, and safer to do than trying to extend supply convoys out to armored units in the field where crews end up with lower quality rest.

@@Talishar I was gonna comment in this thread but you wrote a much better reply

​@@Talishar Japanese and Korean tanks have hydropneumatic suspension that can go low profile and adjust for terrain from terrain

I mean he literally said a bunch of time that the JDF have to sacrifice a lot when it comes to Type 10 just so that it can cross bridges and be more maneuverable around urban area. It's a bad design in theory but it makes sense with the JDF doctrine

​@@quakethedoombringer They have the same design as Leopard 1 and M47 Patton so hull goes disintegrate

​@@quakethedoombringersince japan is highly urbanized wouldn't make sense to have tanks suited for urban warfare?

Type 10 is also the first tank to have C4 inside, in the case of seppuku or harakiri.

Whoa just like Yamato and Musashi being able to rely on each other's rangefinders and firing solutions via radio

If it could be taken off for transport in multiple trucks that would be cool question is if its a thing or not like only after installing the armour once you get into a defensive position isn't that unreasonable

Might as well make a remote controlled turret

@@badgermcbadger1968 but would US share its data of TTB with Japan though?

@@Joshua_N-A I'm sure Japan can develop its own

@@badgermcbadger1968 oh right, forgot about how capable Mitsubishi is of such things.

Honestly with the advent of unmanned vehicle, I can see casemate type vehicle making a comeback, especially for countries whose doctrine focus primarily on defense. Imagine a 40-50ish ummanned vehicle with a lot of composite armor and ERA because all the space for the crew is replaced with a much smaller computers so loitering ammunition cannot just make for an easy roof kill, armed with a big cannon (130mm perhaps) so it can knock out most modern tanks and roof mounted autocannon for drones

*based*

The extra armor package isn’t fielded yet and we don’t know what it looks like. The Type 10 is modular.

but the whole russian doctrine is low profile smol tenk. They save weight as a consequence of small tank, which also limits gun depression and interior space. Type 10 doesn't seem to be very smol. It costs more in weight to put equivalent armor on a bigger tank. So I really don't think weight would be a good indication in this case.

@@jonsong4592they actually are pretty much the same size

They will also replace Type 90.

@@wezzesunum3297 no they will not, type 10 was designed to fight along side type 90 not replace it

The type 10 was designed to be able to use Japans infrastructure like bridges like the type 74 and to work alongside the type 90. It works along side of the type 74 as of right now though.

It was, but due to low production numbers, with less than 120 tanks built since 2010, this wasn’t the case, and is no longer the case. Now with the production of the newer Type 16 MCV, which now supersedes the production of Type 10s completed, is replacing the Type 74, and it has already retired a number of former Tank Units based in Mainland Japan with new units equipped with the Type 16. Due to the Type 16’s capabilities in mobility being better compared to the Type 74 and Type 10, it is the more useful and optimistic AFV equipped with a tank gun to see service with the JSDF. This means that with the Type 16 being better and cheaper compared to the Type 74, the Type 74 will see an end to its time in service in the near future.

@@wyattwesterfield4553 Japan is to reduce it's number of tanks from 600 to 300 in the coming years. The remaining will be positioned on Kyushu and Hokkaido.

what does that mean?

@@zn9219 kind of something Mitsubishi claims of "bringing Iron mon suit armor to Reality" . remember the Arjun video where the supposed hole in the front is protected by a new kind of armor that can provide twice the protection thickness of usual RHA steel? this tech claims to be far more thinner yet able to deal with major blows . kind of a thin sheet of paper being bulletproof to anything till assault rifles and not above.

nanocrystal is a marketing term for the newest (2010s) armored steel. It's lighter. It's already widely used. T-14s outer turret is made of this class of steel, modernized russian BMPs were presented with spaced armor like this. ~5mm does the same job as ~8mm of older steel, enough to stop rifle bullets on its own. It's not a revolutionary improvement, just an improvement.

Nano Crystal Armour just means very high hardness steel but this has been used by other nations way before Type 10 as the standard. Modern composites use ceramics.

No cuz they have engineering bridge laying vehicles.

@@HelminthCombos Laying bridges takes time. The type 10 would be plinking them off from across the river.

@@rael5469 You seem to lack a little "depth" perception here RAEL. Chances are there would quite a few type 99's backing up any bridge layers.

well.... The T90 weighs 45 tons, thats only 1 ton heavier than the type 10, and 5 tons lighter than the Type 90. The Type 99 is 55 tons, which is 5 tons heavier than the type 90, but the type 96A weighs in at 42 tons. Japan's closest possible enemies both have tanks that are just as light as theirs. China has mountainous terrain too, so they have tanks that were designed based on similar issues as Japan. Russia just has lighter MBTs in general due to doctrine. I honestly think maybe Japan plans to move the tanks over bridges and then apply additional armor when they no longer have to be under the weight limit for infrastructure transport.

@@jonsong4592 Interesting info. Thanks.

They intended to make a production as slow as possible to keep a production plant running and workers still have a work to do. I think if war somehow broke out, they csn produce it fast and in sufficient number.

I think leclerc is more suitable rather than the abrams,because it has an autoloader

People tends to attribute heavy weight to armor, which is completely wrong in the Type 10's case. The tank is extremely frontally heavy because of it's composite armor. To achieve a good frontal armor with low weight, they had to strip off all of it's side armor and focused it on it's front. Also, the tank have a smaller profile compared to it's Western counterparts like Leo 2, Challenger 2 and Abrams. The Type 10's hull dimensions are similar to the russian T-series, and the tank's height can be reduced thanks to it's hydropneumatic suspension. Having a smaller profile helps on increasing the protection, since you have a smaller area of the tank to be covered, it is possible to maintain the same level of protection with less weight or increase protection with the same weight. This comes with downsides however, like possible having higher ground pressure because of less roadwheels, having cramped interior, carrying less fuel and less ammo. Upgrades are also hard to do without greatly increasing the tank's weight.

@@_awston1637 While all of that makes sense we just do't know what kind of armor and how much of it. Wheels seem to be spaced evenly, so i don't know.

@Waldel Martell If there is no auto loader that's 10 tons alone in extra weight. I have no clue about the loader, I didn't look it up, i commented on the bases of the cutaway graphic of the layout, and it's an obsolete layout. Who knows why they went with it. For weight management the first thing that's done is optimization of the hull layout, and the first thing that's done there is transverse mounting of the engine to cut down on hull length.

I am not sure about most of your points, but I sorta agree with the road wheel part. I think this thing needs 6 road wheels like the Russian tanks. However, I have also heard odd number road wheels (5 or 7) is better than even number road wheels (6, 8) for traction and mobility. Perhaps they stuck with 5 because of that. But 44 tons/10=4.4 tons of pressure per wheel M1 Abrams 63 ton/14=4.5 tons of pressure per wheel Leopard 2 61.7 ton/14=4.4 tons of pressure per wheel Merkava Mk.4 65 ton/12=5.4 tons of pressure per wheel Challenger 2 62.5 ton/12=5.2 tons of pressure per wheel As for engines, maybe I am wrong but in automobiles having logtitudinal engines are better for weight distribution, stability, capability and mobility. That is why most high end luxury cars, sports cars and every other heavy duty truck have it while cheap economy cars have transverse layout. Maybe that is the logic? Also the Type 10 has a V8 engine not a V12 like every other tank, so smaller length engine so longtitudinal is not as big of an issue. Yes Type 10 have autoloader

@@_awston1637 yes look up surface area to volume ratio. If you increase the volume, the surface area's ratio decreases. Meaning u need more heavy armor to compensate for that. While a smaller volume object have higher surface area coverage ratio or in the tank's case protection. So u have more armor ratio per in smaller volume/size tanks which the type 90/10 are (compared to most western nato tanks) so u don't need heavy armor.

Feel free to elaborate?

I love the type 10 it’s not a heavy tank but I like how it’s designed to be quick maneuverable and Easley deployable around Japan.

Hi Mat. i like it to. but only if its deployed in Specific terrain. in Eu Plains this thing will lose.

Type 16 MCV would be suitable for places like Indonesia and Phillippines. Singapore could actually turn its Terrex or Bionix into a light tank given it's a tiny island.

@@Joshua_N-A I think Indonesia would be better off purchasing a customised Hunter AFV from Singapore with the turret from the KF51 Panther. Alternatively they could hit up Brazil for the EE-T1 Osório which is a lightweight MBT, hit up Argentina for the TAM 2C, or maybe get the Dardo IFV or AS-21 Redback and fit a 105 or 120mm cannon turret from Cockerill or Leonardo.

It’s not inherently flawed, the Japanese designed it the way it is on purpose, they just don’t expect it to get shot at much in action.

Ok expert, tell how dies it work?

Lack of budget

@@AK-wy9db * Laughs in Type-16 *

That's because Gaijin's _sub-par_ programmers have *no idea* how to implement Type 10's transmission and the management *doesn't care* about that, the tank's FCS or the Japanese techtree in general. This tank was added only because *alot* of vocal players wanted it in the game and Gaijin thought that'd mean a quick buck.

@@bickboose9364 and then there's forum members like NNHack who are just straight up delusional on how things work irl. I'm gonna paraphrase what he said as "Eastern Asian countries don't have the experience of German, American, or Russian tank designers so that why their tanks are like swiss cheese".

@@PerciusLive Lol, yeah. No point in even trying to argue with people like that. Anyway, what we can be pretty much 99% sure of is that the Type 10's maneuverability and gun handling should be superior to Type 90's. They'll probably be fixed sometime in the next decade knowing Gaijin's work efficiency.

@@bickboose9364 well, if the Type 10 still keeps eating s*** like it is, they should give it its actual 3.1sec reload. Same goes for the type 90 gettings its 3.5 sec, or fixing its armor, since i dont see them dropping that down to 10.3, where it should be.

@@PerciusLive I highly doubt that'll happen. The very fact they gave those tanks even 4 second reloads is a miracle. If Japan starts making them more money they might consider your proposal, but the tech tree sucks so that's not going to happen.

Yeap. Why it looks proportional to bigger western MBTs is because of that shorter L44 gun. Optical illusion. Coz if it was wearing an L55 gun, its gonna look very “russian”, with a gun that looks too big for its turret.