Talk:Type 10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_10 says:

"Unlike the Type 90, the Type 10 uses modular ceramic composite armour."

while http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_90:

"(…) the Type 90 uses Modular ceramic composite armour."

---

Any reason this is named Type 10? It's still Heisei, and Akihito became Emperor far more than 10 years ago. Or is it slated for service in 2010? --Sctn2labor (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

All JSDF "Type XX" are years in the Western calender. The TK-X (Type 10) is planned for service entry in 2010 but this designation is not strictly speaking correct as JSDF arms are only given "Type XX" designations when they enter service. --86.159.211.76 (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Peter Baptist

Type 10 or TK-X

Seeing as in the Japanese version, the subject is referred to as the TK-X as well as in all official documents, I propose that the title be changed to TK-X and not Type 10. As JSDF only gives "Type XX" designations to arms already in service, I think that it is wrong to call it the Type 10 until it enters service. --86.159.211.76 (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Peter Baptist

shall I Moving a this page "Type 10 (tank)" to "Type10 Hito-maru""　as a nickname? --Tabunoki (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think for encyclopedic purposes, it's better to leave it here and add a 'Nickname' section below. ==MeepSire (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

English transcription of the name

According to my Japanese colleague, the more accurate English transliteration of "Type 10 Battle Tank" would be "hitomaru-shiki sensha". --Барабан (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This is why the chapter about "concerns" was removed :

All rounds are placed looking forward due to "basket mounted" autoloader mechanism and rounds has no "wet storage" between each other because the autolader is "belt type" . Thus if a succesful hit is scored to side of the turret instead of a cook-off, a full scale explosion is very likely, sending all the ammunition forward.

— 88.230.250.194, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Type_10&oldid=742466349

The projectiles are not going to be propelled since a gun barrel is needed in order to hold properly the expanding gas produced by the burning propellant.

Tank is claimed to "successfully downsized" from 50 tonnes to 44 tones from Type 90 with "modular armor" but how such a feat is achieved or whether the armor thickness or effectiveness is impacted or not is not mentioned.

— 88.230.250.194, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Type_10&oldid=742466349

This weight reduction compared to the Type 90 can be explained by the use of a smaller and thus lighter engine (V8 engine instead of a V12), narrower tracks, less tall hull and a flatter turret.

Also Type 10 is not seen with a ERA or any active protection system kit.

— 88.230.250.194, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Type_10&oldid=742466349

Countries such as Germany and Israel have long experience in designing and manufacturing explosive reactive armor and none of them never used ERA on their respective main battle tanks (Leopard 2 and Merkava). The laser warning receivers suggest the presence of a soft-kill active protection system.

Hydropneumatic suspensions usually are not preferred worldwide due to heavier maintenance and unnecessary complexity, but maintenance cost or duration of the tank is not mentioned.

— 88.230.250.194, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Type_10&oldid=742466349

Other advantages of hydropneumatic suspensions include their spring units being self-contained and normally bolted to the outside of hull side plates. This means that they do not add to the height of hulls, as torsion bars do, and that they need not take up any space within the armour envelope. In consequence, the use of hydropneumatic suspensions can produce significant savings in the weight of tanks. Because they are self-contained, hydropneumatic suspension units are simpler to install than the separate springs and dampers of other types of suspensions. Also, because each unit is a damper as well as a spring, they provide better damping, overall, than suspensions in which dampers are only fitted to some of the road wheels. Moreover, when they are bolted to the hull they can better dissipate the heat generated by damping than telescopic dampers because the hull constitutes a large heat sink.

Type 10 is witnessed during exercises to "lose a shoe" (throwing a track during a manuver) , this is thought to stem from low track tension, to allow hydropnuematic suspension to work, but no details given. Also during the same exercise inexperience of the entire crew for a such an event is witnessed, being unable to fixing it and finally towing the stranded tank as a whole "by force".

— 88.230.250.194, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Type_10&oldid=742466349

The nature of the suspensions has no relation to this accident.

Repairing the track in the field would have required too much time. Hauling it outside the showing ground was the best option.

Although tank!s C4I capabilities are touted; details are not given and no questions about the decline of "network centeric warfare" and how this effecting the Type 10s approach is asked. Countermeasures for jamming are also not mentioned.

— 88.230.250.194, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Type_10&oldid=742466349

This kind of information is generally classified.

The 120 mm home developed gun is shown to have HEAT and APFSDS shells but whether it has any general/specific purpose munition (for soft and aerial targets) is not mentioned. If not this prospect presents a serious gap in capability. Also a tube launched ATGM/ Thermobaric munition is not mentioned.

— 88.230.250.194, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Type_10&oldid=742466349

German DM12A1 HEAT-MP-T 120 mm high explosive anti-tank rounds can be seen in the video (locally known as JM12A1 or M830 in the US) has always been considered as a multi-purpose ammunition. In addition, many armies don't use GLATGM due to their high unit cost, their relatively low velocity and their lower reliability compared to conventional tank gun rounds. Currently, no single country has fielded a thermobaric tank round. Sovngard (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Medium Mark A Whippet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)