tanks/vehicles Type 87 - the Japanese Gepard

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

I know.  Me, suggesting a ground vehicle?  Unusual, right?

 

Well, a look at the Japanese preliminary ground forces tree revealed that, while fairly solid for a starting tree, one of its branches was missing something that all of the other nations' comparable branches have: a top-tier SPAAG, as the Duster is a bit lacking compared to stuff like the Shilka and Gepard, so here's something that can be added after it to address this:

 

The Type 87

 

 

If this looks familiar, there's a pretty good reason for that.  For all intents and purposes, it's a Gepard's weapon system and turret put on the hull of a Type 74 (Japan's end-tier medium tank on the preliminary tree) instead of that of a Leopard 1.  Armament is the same in the form of a pair of 35 mm Oerlikon cannons, and overall performance should be similar, save for having the Type 74's adjustable suspension (which may or may not be all that useful for a vehicle that should theoretically be spending most of its time shooting at planes, but for dealing with tanks it could be helpful).  The only real drawback of the vehicle (besides what one would expect from aspects of its design) is the introduction date, implied by the designation: 1987.  This, of course, would make the Type 87 the newest vehicle in the game going by introduction, but as this vehicle is still essentially a Gepard at the end of the day (the Gepard's already in the game, with the Type 74 soon to come, and the Type 87 just combines parts of both), this shouldn't be too much of an issue.

 

Note that in the event that using the production variant is too difficult (due to the armor profile still most likely being classified), there was also the original concept which was supposed to use a Type 61 hull apparently, but I haven't really been able to find detailed information on that one.

 

Specifications (from Wikipedia)

 

Type	Self-propelled anti-aircraft gun
Place of origin	Japan
Service history
In service	1987 to present
Used by	Japan Ground Self-Defense Force (JGSDF)
Production history
Designer	Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Japan Steel Works
Designed	1982
Manufacturer	Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Produced	1987
Number built	52 (2012)
Specifications
Weight	44 t
Length	Hull: 6.7 m (20 ft)
Width	3.2 m (10 ft 6 in)
Height	4.10 m (13 ft 5 in) (radar up-erected)
Crew	3
Armor	steel, classified
Main armament	2 × 35 mm KDA autocannon
Secondary armament	2 × 3 smoke grenade dischargers
Engine	Mitsubishi 10ZF Type 22 10-cylinder air-cooled diesel engine 750 hp (560 kW)
Power/weight	17 hp/ton
Suspension	hydropneumatic
Operational range	300 km (190 mi)
Speed	53 km/h (33 mph)

 

Sources:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_87_self-propelled_anti-aircraft_gun

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/type-87-self-propelled-anti-aircraft-gun-spaag/

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=415

 

EDIT

 

Just to address some potential concerns:

 

 

Q: What about the cutoff date?

A: There isn't one anymore.  It was replaced by a technological one, and right now it seems that the only hard limit on ground vehicles is no composite or reactive armor, no modern targeting systems, and no countermeasure systems.

 

Q: Aren't some details on this vehicle still classified?

A: In its current configuration, yes, but it can be assumed that these vehicles have been upgraded throughout their service lives.  Worst-case scenario, treat it as though it's nothing more than a Gepard turret on a Type 74 hull, or resort to the conceptual version which was to use the Type 61 hull but was rejected for being too heavy by the JGSDF's standards.  Either way, it's not like that armor's going to stop anything larger than an autocannon shell fired at the front, or a heavy machine gun round into the sides, rear, or top.

 

Q: Why are there only 'yes' or 'no' answers on the poll?

A: Because 'other'/'abstain' votes are irrelevant and basically the equivalent of not voting at all.  'Maybe' could also be considered a conditional 'Yes' vote, so I left that out as well.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Z3r0_

[blakeob 8,086]

Open for discussion. 

[Amanda_D_215@psn 146]

I had to vote no. I wanted to say yes and I agree with a lot of your reasoning, but I just can't get past the production date. 1987 is pretty recent. If the game wants to creep ever closer to modern times that's one thing, but you can't really call this early Cold War.

[Arkel-99@psn 1,030]

Didn't Gaijin already denied this vehicle because of certain tech it uses? I am also pretty sure this vehicle is still classified (probably because it is still in use to this day) so it would be kind of hard to get much info on.

 

2 minutes ago, *Amanda_D_215 said:

I had to vote no. I wanted to say yes and I agree with a lot of your reasoning, but I just can't get past the production date. 1987 is pretty recent. If the game wants to creep ever closer to modern times that's one thing, but you can't really call this early Cold War.

 

However, there is no cut-off date anymore but a technological cut-off. Just letting you know in case you didn't know yet.

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

17 minutes ago, *Amanda_D_215 said:

I had to vote no. I wanted to say yes and I agree with a lot of your reasoning, but I just can't get past the production date. 1987 is pretty recent. If the game wants to creep ever closer to modern times that's one thing, but you can't really call this early Cold War.

 

I understand that, but as Arkel pointed out, there's no cutoff date anymore, it's technology (right now, the only remaining hard limit on ground vehicles seems to be ' no composite or reactive armor, no modern targeting systems, and no countermeasure systems').  While it would be the newest vehicle in the game by a fair margin, technologically speaking it's virtually identical to the Gepard.

 

10 minutes ago, *Arkel-99 said:

Didn't Gaijin already denied this vehicle because of certain tech it uses? I am also pretty sure this vehicle is still classified (probably because it is still in use to this day) so it would be kind of hard to get much info on.

 

 

However, there is no cut-off date anymore but a technological cut-off. Just letting you know in case you didn't know yet.

 

You mean the same reasoning they initially gave for not adding the Gepard and Shilka (the radar)?  Welp, they added them anyway and just decided to make the radar and any sort of automation nonfunctional, like they've been on night fighters in air battles for a long time.

 

And while SOME details of the vehicle are still classified, if we go by what one would assume the initial production version was like (before any possible upgrades throughout its service life), it's pretty easy to extrapolate its characteristics.  The safe bet is to just guess that it's a Gepard turret on a Type 74 hull.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Z3r0_

[Arkel-99@psn 1,030]

35 minutes ago, Z3r0_ said:

You mean the same reasoning they initially gave for not adding the Gepard and Shilka (the radar)?  Welp, they added them anyway and just decided to make the radar nonfunctional, like they've been on nightfighters for a long time.

 

Yeah you I don't know much about the tech it would use that makes it too advanced, maybe it is something different other then the radar?

 

35 minutes ago, Z3r0_ said:

And while SOME details of the vehicle are still classified, if we go by what one would assume the initial production version was like (before any possible upgrades throughout its service life), it's pretty easy to extrapolate its characteristics.  The safe bet is to just guess that it's a Gepard turret on a Type 74 hull.

 

By this logic the FlakPz I Gepard hull should have the same armour thickness as the Leopard 1s hull (which it doesn't) simply because it is based of it? Sorry but that doesn't seem like a valid enough point to add something as you're simply guessing the armour thickness, Gaijin will need to have actual sources. 

 

And even if it uses the same hull of the Type 74 and might actually have the same armour thickness you will still need armour thickness of the turret, which at first glance might look the same as that of the Gepard, it still isn't made by Germany and it also isn't an exact copy-paste by looks thus you can't really compare it to the Gepard's turret and give it the same armour thickness.

 

I'm not against this or anything but it just seems like a silly thing for Gaijin to do of just guessing the armour thickness based of something that might look a bit like something else but is still is a completely different vehicle made by a different country. If Gaijin can get some information about the armour it could be added without a problem, just don't go as far to model every bit of tech it uses. But since it classified I doubt Gaijin will ever get the information they need, especially since it still in use like I said before.

Edited December 19, 2016 by *Arkel-99

[KuroiOtori 1,049]

The thing is that this is a preliminary tech tree. We might not get the production version of the guntank but it's prototype on a Type 61 chassis.

And if I may have a word on the classification, Type 74 too is still in service.

Anyway I voted yes even If I'm sure we'll get a version of it untimately.

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

28 minutes ago, KuroiOtori said:

The thing is that this is a preliminary tech tree. We might not get the production version of the guntank but it's prototype on a Type 61 chassis.

And if I may have a word on the classification, Type 74 too is still in service.

Anyway I voted yes even If I'm sure we'll get a version of it untimately.

 

Perhaps, though keep in mind that that's basically a 'worst-case' scenario in case it really is impossible to get information on the vehicle's armor profile.  The conceptual version with the Type 61 hull is also an option, but it's harder to find information on that one.

 

I am aware that there are a few hurdles to overcome, but the whole point of this thread is to discuss ways to address those and hopefully implement this vehicle, or to find alternatives if that proves to be impossible.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Z3r0_

[Retry 7,363]

I said "no" because there's no option for "other".  I highly anticipate that the Type 61 chassis version will probably be implemented but not the full '87.  Tunguskas, Abrams, Bradleys are all younger than the Type 87, which in turn isn't very far from the Japanese IFV '89.  It's getting a bit less War Thunder and a bit more Wargame here.

[Maki3006 2,690]

It has classified armor therefore does not belong in War Thunder.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Springfield3006

[Optical_Ilyushin 5,554]

9 hours ago, *Amanda_D_215 said:

I had to vote no. I wanted to say yes and I agree with a lot of your reasoning, but I just can't get past the production date. 1987 is pretty recent. If the game wants to creep ever closer to modern times that's one thing, but you can't really call this early Cold War.

 

2 hours ago, Retry said:

I said "no" because there's no option for "other".  I highly anticipate that the Type 61 chassis version will probably be implemented but not the full '87.  Tunguskas, Abrams, Bradleys are all younger than the Type 87, which in turn isn't very far from the Japanese IFV '89.  It's getting a bit less War Thunder and a bit more Wargame here.

 

 

jesus, people using the "cutoff date" argument still? not even gaijin uses this anymore...

 

community is actually falling behind, or stubbornly adhering to arbitrary cutoff dates?

 

 

if we removed the digital fire system as an option ingame, I personally feel this vehicle is perfectly ok. I support this. give me my guntank!

 

[WulfPack 1,693]

3 hours ago, Retry said:

I said "no" because there's no option for "other".  I highly anticipate that the Type 61 chassis version will probably be implemented but not the full '87.  Tunguskas, Abrams, Bradleys are all younger than the Type 87, which in turn isn't very far from the Japanese IFV '89.  It's getting a bit less War Thunder and a bit more Wargame here.

9K22 has fire and forget missiles.

M1, M2, and the Type 89 have composite armor.

[Vitasalato 681]

I'm sure that this SPAA as been already considered from the devs, but the classified armor represent an huge problem, and imo is the reason behind the fact that is not planed to introduce it in game.

Is not that I don't want this SPAA, but it have a core problem that might solved till the armor is declassified.

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

7 hours ago, Retry said:

I said "no" because there's no option for "other".  I highly anticipate that the Type 61 chassis version will probably be implemented but not the full '87.  Tunguskas, Abrams, Bradleys are all younger than the Type 87, which in turn isn't very far from the Japanese IFV '89.  It's getting a bit less War Thunder and a bit more Wargame here.

 

I was tempted to include one but I've found the option to be redundant on most polls in the past, same with 'maybe' or 'abstain' options, as the real way to vote for such options is to simply not vote at all.  I'd add an option to vote for the Type 61 hull variant but that would skew the poll as it is already.

 

7 hours ago, Retry said:

I said "no" because there's no option for "other".  I highly anticipate that the Type 61 chassis version will probably be implemented but not the full '87.  Tunguskas, Abrams, Bradleys are all younger than the Type 87, which in turn isn't very far from the Japanese IFV '89.  It's getting a bit less War Thunder and a bit more Wargame here.

Technically speaking, the Type 87 probably isn't much more advanced than the Gepard.  Keep in mind that the JSDF is usually a bit BEHIND the curve when it comes to adopting new tech (by virtue of being a "self-defense force" rather than a proper military).  This is part of the reason why the JASDF hasn't replaced their F-4s or F-15As with anything more modern, to give an example (another reason being that their initial first choice of a replacement, the F-22, was banned from being exported at all, but that's getting off-topic).

 

Any of the more advanced features can simply by omitted, like on the other top-tier SPAAGs in-game.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Z3r0_

[Retry 7,363]

4 hours ago, Z3r0_ said:

 

I was tempted to include one but I've found the option to be redundant on most polls in the past, same with 'maybe' or 'abstain' options, as the real way to vote for such options is to simply not vote at all.  I'd add an option to vote for the Type 61 hull variant but that would skew the poll as it is already.

 

Technically speaking, the Type 87 probably isn't much more advanced than the Gepard.  Keep in mind that the JSDF is usually a bit BEHIND the curve when it comes to adopting new tech (by virtue of being a "self-defense force" rather than a proper military).  This is part of the reason why the JASDF hasn't replaced their F-4s or F-15As with anything more modern, to give an example (another reason being that their initial first choice of a replacement, the F-22, was banned from being exported at all, but that's getting off-topic).

 

Any of the more advanced features can simply by omitted, like on the other top-tier SPAAGs in-game.

1987 is still pretty late for being that far behind, hence why the earlier Type-61 SPAAG prototype would be more feasible.  It's not like we don't have this alternative.

 

Few things are actually restricted if one is a technological cutoff literalist.  Multiple variants of the Wiesel tankette would be fair game.

[Veraklion 97]

Yes because it looks INCREDIBLE, like a machine from the 2050's, also in game, Gaijin would almost certainly give it no radar, or advanced FCS in favor of better gameplay which I think is the right way to go, only if Gaijin adds incredibly fast jets like Mig-25s should we ever have advanced FCS in the game.

 

Not to mention it'd essentially just be really incredibly cool looking Gepard, with the added advantage of knowing that it's not a failed prototype, but a successful production model SPAAG.

 

Unlike things like the Mig-25, this thing won't be dependent on advanced systems to work in game. As we see in game, none of the new spaags have any functioning radars or high tech FCS. All they have is better ammo, better guns, more accuracy, high turret turn rates, and guns that go up and down fast. It would be the exact same with the Type 87.

[Admiral_Aruon 2,264]

people... something i HAVE to point out: in addition to the 1970 cutoff being obsolete and no longer official policy, there's a major case of semantics when it comes to the age of the Type 87:

 

while yes, it was put into series production a mere 4 years prior to the end of the Cold War, its turret (a slight and mostly cosmetic modification of the original gepard turret) and chassis (slightly altered to be mated with the turret) were both produced long before the 1980s.

 

as for the subject of the still semi-classified nature of the vehicle:

 

1. it's still an actively serving vehicle in the JGSDF. most likely it's true armor value (if there's even any structural difference from the actual MBT) is obscured simply for the sake of obfuscation.

2. japan isn't part of NATO and is still (officially) limited in its military development...

3 ...and take in mind that this is a SPAAG, and has never been meant as a frontline brawler, so i'd say i'm pretty safe in saying the chances of the chances of the Type 87 having any kind of stalinium-proof composite materials in it's construction is on the corner of Nope St. and Uparatsass Ave.

 

 

lastly, the base vehicles are already ingame, and save for the positioning of the radar on the actual Gepard (apparently it's a patented design layout) and maybe the innards of the Type 74 chassis, there's very little additional work needed.

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

+1

[Ryan_King 907]

Gib! Banzai

[MoldyThesaurus 680]

In my personal opinion I think it to be very reasonable to give this to the Japanese as their top Tier SPAA.  The Type 87 replaced the M42 Duster and let's be honest the Duster isn't exactly the best SPAA to use against jet aircraft.

 

Let's remember that the Type 87 isn't as effective as the Mobile Suit Gundams the were developing at the time :3

Edited December 20, 2016 by MoldyThesaurus

[ComplexSequence@psn 657]

YES +1 But hey I say yes to every post war tank.. 

[blakeob 8,086]

Moved back to the normal suggestions forum as OP cannot access it in the CBT forum.

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

16 hours ago, blakeob said:

Moved back to the normal suggestions forum as OP cannot access it in the CBT forum.

 

Thank you.  Note that this should only be a temporary measure, as I've already brought this up with wotertool to have the problem fixed (as I SHOULD have access due to purchasing the Japanese tank bundle) - he's just waiting to hear back from one of his superiors as he doesn't seem to know how to fix the problem (logging out and logging back in didn't work).

 

On the other hand, having the thread here DOES give it a bit more exposure (and more discussion as a result), and it's not really talking about any of the vehicles CURRENTLY in the CBT for Japanese tanks (unless one counts the fact that this would follow the M42 Duster on the tech tree), so maybe it might be better to leave it here.  I'll leave it up to you and the rest of the helpers once this whole issue with access to the CBT subforum is sorted out.

 

On 12/19/2016 at 8:33 PM, Retry said:

1987 is still pretty late for being that far behind, hence why the earlier Type-61 SPAAG prototype would be more feasible.  It's not like we don't have this alternative.

 

Few things are actually restricted if one is a technological cutoff literalist.  Multiple variants of the Wiesel tankette would be fair game.

 

Fair enough, though I have a feeling that the variant with the Type 61 hull would be even harder to find information on, by virture of being a prototype.  Sure, some aspects of the Type 87 are classified, but most of them are irrelevant save for the armor thickness (it can be assumed that as far as composition goes, it's probably just RHA), not that the armor thickness really matters on such a light vehicle (it MIGHT be able to stop an autocannon shell to the front and HMGs to the side, but that's about all one could expect from it), even if we assume that it has the same armor thickness as the Type 74.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Z3r0_

[WulfPack 1,693]

3 hours ago, Z3r0_ said:

Fair enough, though I have a feeling that the variant with the Type 61 hull would be even harder to find information on, by virture of being a prototype.  Sure, some aspects of the Type 74 are classified, but most of them are irrelevant save for the armor thickness (it can be assumed that as far as composition goes, it's probably just RHA), not that the armor thickness really matters on such a light vehicle (it MIGHT be able to stop an autocannon shell to the front and HMGs to the side, but that's about all one could expect from it), even if we assume that it has the same armor thickness as the Type 74.

Isn't the Type 74 in the game?

[SAUBER_KH7 3,326]

38 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

Isn't the Type 74 in the game?

It is.