Type 10
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Type 10 Thread: Worthy 4th Generation or stopgap just to get rid of the Type 74/90? Will probably never be used in Operation so we'll never know.
>Japanese
>tank
>worthy
I've just noticed how turret looks almost identical to Leclerc
>>29169793
1st Gen : Type 61
2nd Gen : Type 74
3rd Gen : Type 90
4th Gen : Type 10
>>29169833
I disagree.
The mantlet has a passing resemblance to the Leo 1 mexas, but that's all IMO.
>>29169826
That line of thinking is akin to
>fighters without guns
>useful
>>29169793
Why would you get rid of the Type-90?
>>29169793
Looks quite hot.
The 50t Type 90 tank can use 65% of all major bridges in Japan.
The Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 would be only capable of crossing 40% of all major bridges.
The Type 10 between 40 and 48t would be able to provide tank support in many areas where no enemy tank could operate in the first place.
>>29170615
Exactly which means they will not encounter other armor making them useless
>>29170727
>tanks are designed around fighting other tanks
What are you, retarded?
>>29169793
>corrugated cardboard steel
>>29170776
>
Why does everyone on /k/ resort to shitposting when they are wrong?
I really hope to learn more about its meme-y "nano-crystal steel" armor and whether it's actually any good.
>>29170808
Because tanks, contrary to your beliefs, are NOT designed to fight other tanks. Yes, they can do so, but they mainly do other things.
>>29170727
This makes JSDF having huge advantage over enemy landing forces as aggressor would be forced to face tanks on foot or at best with only light armor at their disposal.
>>29169793
Type 10
Only 44 ton weight
Shit-class-light-amour
Gen 4
WTF????????
