type 10 Type 10 : The Lightweight Heavy Hitter

[aizenns 3,590]

Type 10 Tank / 10式戦車

 

Drawings from Japan Ministry of Defense, Type 10 tank specification document

Spoiler

 

 

Type 10 tank is Japanese new Main Battle Tank used since 2010.

Japanese already had 3rd gen MBT: Type 90. but it was too heavy (over 50 tons!), so this tank belong to only Hokkaido island area and Fuji Tank School. Furthermore, they failed to develop improve the Type 74 (Type 74 G).

So, they really need more light and good tank: Type 10!

Now, this tank replacing Type 74s in Tank units of JGSDF Western Army(Kyushu), Eastern Army(Kanto-Koshinetsu-Shizuoka), and Northern Army (Hokkaido). Now this tank built 93 in 2010-2018.

But, tanks are too expensive, so North Eastern Army and Middle army tank units will be abolished.

 

The biggest feature of this tank is its weight: in normal full load only 44.4 tons! This is the lightest 3rd gen (or 3.5 gen) MBT in the world.

Also this tank have very good mobility: its top speed is 70 km/h in drive and back! 

 

Off course, this tank is too new tank, so it is bit difficult for War Thunder, but now we get Type 90: there are chance for this tank!

 

Quote

 

Specification

Vehicle	Mass     Light load     Normal full load     Add modular armor (guess)	Lower than 40.0 t 44.4 t 48 t?
	Length	9,485 mm
	Width	3,120 mm
	Height	2,300 mm
	Turret length	7,796 mm
	Turret width	2,190 mm
	Turret height	1,445 mm
	Hull length	7,400 mm
	Hull width	3,120 mm
	Hull height	1,660 mm
Engine	V8 water-cooled 4 cycle diesel engine	1200 hp / 2300 rpm
Speed	Front Back	70 km/h 70 km/h
Crew	3
Suspension	Semi-active suspension Active hydropneumatic suspension
Weapons	Japan Steel Works 120mm tank gun	JM33 APFSDS JM12A1 HEAT Type 00 training shell Type 10 blank ammunition Type 10 APFSDS Test shell for 120mm TKG
	Type 74 7.92mm machine gun	1
	12.7mm machine gun	1

 

 

 

Quote

 

About Type 10 APFSDS

• Length: 980 mm
• Mass: 20.5 mm
• Bore: 119.9 mm
• Shot length: 748.0 mm
• Shot mass: 7.8 kg
• Core mass: 4.2 kg
• Core bore: 24.0 mm

 

•  

Quote

About its armor

Quote

 

In transportation, this tank can detach modular armor and its cover on turret. In this style its weight is lower than 40 tons.

This style is for transportation, but in the drive test and Shooting test it without modular armor, so this tank can fight in this style.

 

Quote

 

Side module have lots of access door. Its Towel box/ spaced armor, but add on armor will into this space.

Quote

 

And, this tank can equip add-on-armor on top and side. (include side-skirt)

If equip add-on armor, this tank weight will be 48 tons.

Type 90 & Type 10 MBT parts weight

maybe research document about Type 10 development by MoD

Sources

Quote

 

Ministry of Defense documents about Type 10 MBT request for disclosure

• Type 10 tank specification document
• 120mm tank gun for Type 10 tank specification document

http://eaglet.skr.jp/MILITARY/TK-X.htm

 

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by aizenns
add about history, fix sentence, fix poll

[leroyonly 4,310]

Open for discussion. 

[Van_Darkholme69 500]

How does the tank compare to the Type 90? If the performance of the armour and gun is similar enough, it could very well be a good addition to WT without breaking the game.

[dotEXCEL 5,968]

+1 but only if 2A6M

[Alzoc 367]

For it's APFSDS assuming that the velocity is the same than the JM33 fired from the L44 and that the data given in the OP are correct it should give it a penetration of:

 

798mm in RHA @60° @muzzle

683mm in RHA @0° @muzzle

 

It's possible that the round is segmented, which would make sense given that it's quite a recent round.

It can help with heavy ERA like kontakt 5 for example.

This should give a rough idea of the round's performance, but those value are to take with a serious grain of salt since Lanz-Odermatt isn't really applicable per se to complex shape APFSDS (i.e non simple monobloc rods).

 

Anyway it's a huge improvement compared to the DM33/JM33 and it's ~530mm of pen in RHA @60° @muzzle

 

As for armor it's hard to say.

Side armor is possibly even worst than the Type 90, while the frontal armor is probably equivalent to slightly better compared to the Type 90 for all we know.

Really hard to say.

 

But the main advantages of the Type 10 which are it's BMS and various warning systems are not implemented into the game yet, so it would be hard to make it justice anyway.

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by Alzoc

[aizenns 3,590]

2 hours ago, Alzoc said:

As for armor it's hard to say.

Side armor is possibly even worst than the Type 90, while the frontal armor is probably equivalent to slightly better compared to the Type 90 for all we know.

Really hard to say.

Hmm

At least JGSDF says defenses, attacks and mobility are improved.

 

http://www.mod.go.jp/gsdf/nae/7d/tk_history.html#hito

I think side armor thickness is same as Type 90, But it get spaced armor so better than it. At least it’s side armor can bear RPG-7

[Alzoc 367]

45 minutes ago, aizenns said:

Hmm

At least JGSDF says defenses, attacks and mobility are improved.

 

http://www.mod.go.jp/gsdf/nae/7d/tk_history.html#hito

I think side armor thickness is same as Type 90, But it get spaced armor so better than it. At least it’s side armor can bear RPG-7

 

Well let's say that I believe that it's hard to shave 6 tons compared to the Type 90, having a very similar size (though the Type 10 is still a little bit smaller) and protected area while significantly improving the frontal protection without sacrificing the side armor.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

On the other hand, a base hull made of harder steel (aka nano steel) can help to shave off weight while maintaining some protection capability against light arms.

Also the front of the turret look like the Leo 2A5 wedges which are most likely big empty cavities to allow an incoming rod to tilt inside (significantly degrading it's penetration).

So it's possible that the turret armor might be significantly better than on the type 90. But this solution needs a lot of constructional depth so I'm not sure that you it's possible to do this on the hull as well.

 

Spoiler

 

My point is that shaving off so much weight compared to the Type 90 which have a similar protected area tell us that it would be hard to keep the same amount of protection everywhere, so that's why I said that the frontal protection may be equal to marginally better on the Type 10 at the cost of side armor.

As for elements that goes in favour of an improved protection, the wedge turret and the nano-steel armor can allow to save weight while retaining a decent amount of protection.

 

As far as RPG-7 protection on the side goes, I guess it's possible since there is plenty of light weight solutions to counter CE ammo.

 

So you have both pro and cons at the same time and we can't quantify any of them without further info.

It's not out of the realm of possibility, but we can't explain it without more details.

That's why it's hard to be categorical on the Type 10's armor.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Alzoc

[mursuttaja 745]

not sure really, i thought that the type 90 would be as far, as they can take the japanese TT (call me cynical)

there are still holes in the TT for japan in high tiers, that comes before the type 90, so at least there's that.

[Admiral_Aruon 2,264]

4 hours ago, Muammar_Gaddaf69 said:

How does the tank compare to the Type 90? If the performance of the armour and gun is similar enough, it could very well be a good addition to WT without breaking the game.

 

i'd say compare the basic M1A1 model to the M1A2 SEP V1 or V2 sans non-frontal armor upgrades. it's like a Kyu-Maru but with 21st century upgrades and a slimfast diet.

[Laviduce 1,779]

1 hour ago, Alzoc said:

 

Well let's say that I believe that it's hard to shave 6 tons compared to the Type 90, having a very similar size (though the Type 10 is still a little bit smaller) and protected area while significantly improving the frontal protection without sacrificing the side armor.

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

On the other hand, a base hull made of harder steel (aka nano steel) can help to shave off weight while maintaining some protection capability against light arms.

Also the front of the turret look like the Leo 2A5 wedges which are most likely big empty cavities to allow an incoming rod to tilt inside (significantly degrading it's penetration).

So it's possible that the turret armor might be significantly better than on the type 90. But this solution needs a lot of constructional depth so I'm not sure that you it's possible to do this on the hull as well.

 

  Hide contents

 

My point is that shaving off so much weight compared to the Type 90 which have a similar protected area tell us that it would be hard to keep the same amount of protection everywhere, so that's why I said that the frontal protection may be equal to marginally better on the Type 10 at the cost of side armor.

As for elements that goes in favour of an improved protection, the wedge turret and the nano-steel armor can allow to save weight while retaining a decent amount of protection.

 

As far as RPG-7 protection on the side goes, I guess it's possible since there is plenty of light weight solutions to counter CE ammo.

 

So you have both pro and cons at the same time and we can't quantify any of them without further info.

It's not out of the realm of possibility, but we can't explain it without more details.

That's why it's hard to be categorical on the Type 10's armor.

 

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

... sooo... any facts to go along with these pretty pictures and copy pasta statistics? 

 

... no? Ok... 

[dotEXCEL 5,968]

6 hours ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

... sooo... any facts to go along with these pretty pictures and copy pasta statistics? 

 

... no? Ok... 

expected anything else?

[WulfPack 1,693]

Sure if I get a T-14

[FaafVonFasslich 218]

calm down. We just entered 3rd gen MBTs, we are still far away ((at least a year I guess, probably more) from todays tanks. First enter 3rd Gen starter, then fill the ranks with some other vehicles (light tanks, ATGMs, and so on) and then take the next step

[aizenns 3,590]

1 hour ago, FaafVonFasslich said:

calm down. We just entered 3rd gen MBTs, we are still far away ((at least a year I guess, probably more) from todays tanks. First enter 3rd Gen starter, then fill the ranks with some other vehicles (light tanks, ATGMs, and so on) and then take the next step

I agree it.

I hope air rank 6 and navy comes before 4th gen(?) MBTs coming.

Edited May 24, 2018 by aizenns

[TheLastYouSee__@psn 281]

are we honestly already asking for the current japanese service tank? lets not.

[aizenns 3,590]

14 minutes ago, *TheLastYouSee__ said:

 

are we honestly already asking for the current japanese service tank? lets not.

 

But Type 74 is most commonest Japanese tank in service now lol

[I_hate_usernames 7]

Honestly, it's a bit modern for now, Japan is still missing a ton of WW2 and 1980's equipment. 

 

If Gajin decides to go modern or once the rest of the tree is fulled out, then it's a yes, otherwise I'm fine with waiting. 

[aizenns 3,590]

5 minutes ago, I_hate_usernames said:

 

Honestly, it's a bit modern for now, Japan is still missing a ton of WW2 and 1980's equipment

 

Hmm

But we already have 1980’s equipment...

I think JGSDF vehicle that we have chance is only Type 16 MCV, Type 89 FV (and minor changes of in-game units.)

 

 

WW2 tank that we don’t see in game are not popular because they were stayed on Japan and not used, or only prototype.

So, it’s priority will be very low.

[Querulous1 3,276]

Yes, but as MBT range expands it will come. In a year or three perhaps.

[島風 2,396]

I Voted Yes, But It Won't Be Likely It Will Be Added Soon, It's Still In Service For Less Than 10y (8y Currently) 
The Armor Values Are Highly Classified
And With The Current Meta, This Would Need To Be Higher Than 12.0+ 

Give It Some Years And Look If Gaijin Would Consider Adding A Tank That Is The Latest Current Tank A Nation Has Made In Recent History

[Shimamurider 92]

Give Type10 right now.

 

 

[Optical_Ilyushin 5,554]

I really want to see this ingame, of course with the appropriate contemporaries.

[島風 2,396]

1 hour ago, Optical_Ilyushin said:

I really want to see this ingame, of course with the appropriate contemporaries.

How About An Appropriate Line-Up To Begin With..?

[Tasty95215 2,099]

While this tank won't be added for a long time, if ever, all of this information on it is rather interesting. Does anyone have photos of the Type 10 with the extra armor on?

 

Is this picture the Type 10 with or without the extra armor? I honestly can't tell.

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Tasty95215