Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective-Sea videos ruclips.net/p/PLEMWqyRZP_Lr1-xIzFrM6xUHCOgetdkmp Please click the link to watch our other Japanese Systems videos ruclips.net/p/PLEMWqyRZP_LoGHZpbX_LShNT-UxMLomZJ Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective videos ruclips.net/p/PLEMWqyRZP_LrdqB-XbqY2LocUVEaG_w7D
@@WeaponDetective Great channel. I would highly suggest you don't have background music. I firmly believe background music is annoying, distracting, and unnecessary (especially for information-dense educational videos). I also believe people want to hear you speak (and you do have an accent that makes it hard to hear) and get information and not hear generic background music that they have to mentally filter out and doesn't really add anything useful.
Proved to be a effective strategy for the Sherman in WWII and sense the world's military powers are facing financial collapse I doubt anyone needs super machines.
It makes sense for them strategically too. Lugging heavy MBTs around Japan and it's surroundings is hard work that takes expensive equipment. Modern Japanese MBTs are all on the light side to begin with. A vehicle like this can serve in many similar roles as an MBT, but will be much easier for the JGSDF to deploy across Japan or transport to a nearby conflict, on top of it's economical advantages.
Wrong. It's not a tank. It's a cavalry vehicle and tank hunter. Just like the Centauro. It is specially useful because many bridged in Japan's rugged terrain can not support the weight of a MBT.
@@marneus arguably it can perform in many armored combatant roles successfully. Armor is high enough that small arms fire is negligible, and then at range the goal would be to not be hit in the first place. Doctrinal usage of the vehicle can make it effective in a similar vein to a tank, though not entirely as effective in a range of capabilities.
@@lepepelepub12 new procurement is always expensive, especially when it departs from established doctrines. But Japan's political stance has changed, it desires more force projection and strategic mobility so it can be more proactive in it's own defense and more ready to help it's neighbors. In that context the economy of a wheeled support gun is beyond obvious. Moving MBTs across japan requires specialized railway and road transportation to protect infrastructure, as well as military landing ships and/or heavy weight transport aircraft. You need this to have mobility across Japan itself, to say nothing of deploying such forces some distance from Japan in a timely fashion. Japanese MBTs are already made expensive and fragile by the strict weight requirements of Japanese infrastructure and logistics. Compared to all these specialized logistical assets that would be needed to create an MBT force with comparable mobility, the addition of one wheeled AFV that can be carried by smaller ships, airlifted by helicopter, and drive itself around Japan without tearing up roads, bridges, and countryside, is by far the cheaper, easier, and faster option. And once the use of such wheeled vehicles is established they are categorically more economical than tracked vehicles of similar role. So in addition to short term benefits related to the new military goals, there are long term economic benefits to the introduction of more wheeled vehicles as opposed to over-relying on tracked designs.
It is not just a question of finances. The Type 10 might be expensive, but the reason the JGSDF is not acquiring the Type 90 and the Type 10 in the same quantities as the Type 74 is that they have gotten too big. A tank is designed with a specific terrain in mind. The Leopard 2 is designed for the North German plain, so are the Abrams and the Challenger 2. The Merkava is designed for the Middle East. Japan is mostly mountains. A 70+ ton tank is not an asset there. It is a burden. Very hard to transport, very hard to maneuver, requires a huge logistical train...
Narrow roads combined with mountainous terrain and relatively soft ground makes classical MBT impractical in Japan. Western style MBT will most probably get stuck and immobilized very quickly. Opposite was true when Japan fought in Asia though.
They type 10 is only a few tons heavier than the type 74; and is entirely capable of going to most areas that the older vehicle can. It is still worthwhile to have it as a partial replacement, considering the fact that the Type 90 is too heavy, and the type 16 is not capable of engaging better armored tanks with its 105mm gun. All three vehicles have their roles in the JGSDF.
Wut? Wasn't the Japanese Groundforce mainly designed to fight giant reptiles that fire rayweapons from their mouth? I've seen many documentary films on this....
Indeed. The same goes for all bullshit about Economy Tank. It's a mountains tank. Means none other heavier vehicles will come on their way. Type 90 and Type 10 got a similar level of FCS cameras and sights. If the author would know about investment in Type 90... Nah, seems like he'd still talk shit about things he had no slightest idea.
Is everything Japanese controversial? Heavy MBTs isn't favored on Japan's road laws. Type 90 is too heavy to transport to islands around Japan. Type 16 can be loaded into a lamding craft. Japan is mountainous and has plenty of urban areas. Type 16 also designed to shoot and scoot and able to be transported by C-2 transport aircraft.
Also who Gona bother with Japan it's got no Minerals oil rare earths etc it's Total Industrial power could be shut down by 6 submarines.. bit like UK We'd starve without shipping Same old Probs all islands have Uk is better Tank battle country tho Lol Everything is electronic now small powerfull intelligent missiles In small mobile cheap Carriers It's a new world 🌍
@@rogerpartner1622 only thing I can think of Japan could ship would be maybe obsidian since they are volcanic islands....but other than that all mineral resources have been very limited there
Well, this vehicle is meant to tackle enemy armored vehicles at a distance and conduct shoot-and-scoot tactics as well as support infantry in urban combat, and if it can do its job well, then why the controversy?
It's controversial because some in Japan see it as a step towards foreign operations - as the vehicle is fairly light and easy to transport to places outside of Japan. And quite a good portion of the population is against any sort of foreign military involvement.
I dont think japan will "rise up" again. Not soon at least. Japanese culture has changed alot, the samurai spirit is dead. The emperor is gone, and now they have given the world anime and efficient cars. They arent the same.
As a side note, the deployment of the Type 90 and Type 10 was greatly influenced by circumstances: the number of Type 90s was reduced due to the end of the Cold War, and the Type 10 was due to the reduction of tank units as resources were concentrated in other domains. In the 2010s, the tank quota was halved to 300 tanks, tank units outside of Hokkaido (facing Russia, where most of the tank units are located)and Kyushu (facing China) were to be eliminated in the future. As a result, the Type 16 was assigned to defend areas where there were no tank units. However, the SDF also understands that the Type 16 is different from a tank. Its main missions are delayed action, destroying light armored vehicles, and infantry support. If tank units arrive from other areas and counterattack, it will be in support. The Type 16 is not very strong against tanks, but it has reassuring friends. The medium-range multipurpose missile, MMPM, is capable of multi-target engagement and is a trump card in anti-tank combat. There is also a plan to create a family of APCs and other vehicles based on the Type 16, and this family of vehicles is expected to be the mainstay of the future JGSDF.
By the way, it's not at all controversial in Japan. There has been a discussion on improving wheel-based assets for decades. It took around 15 years and to finally get the budgetary approval.
@@discount8508 no offense but I find that highly unlikely. Unless the hill was made of firm terrain, sure they can have a higher power to weight ratio but they also have much more ground pressure and less traction, so on soft ground they're at a massive disadvantage, and once again, no armor
@@antimatter4733 yes .....the ground was firm .......and they were on higher ground before the abrams could get in any firing position .........the top of an abrams = 20mm tops ....another point its better to have something in position fast than something heavier thats going be too late for the party ...... their range is far better than a fuel guzzling tank like the abrams ........also more armour can be bolted on and armament can be whatever you want ie AT rockets , 105mmgun , 20mm gun AA ...take your pick
@@discount8508 real life isn't a shooting range with well compacted dirt roads, when you have to drive across desert sand, swamps and marches there's no substitute for lower ground pressure. Top armor isn't a major criteria for tanks but the Abrams has way more than 20mm, the majority of the top is 38.1mm or 31.75 over the engine, the only place that is 20mm is the blow out panels which aren't connected to the crew compartment. The Abrams is notoriously fuel hungry, when compared to a leopard for example the ranges are pretty similar. You can't bolt more armor on, once again your weight is limited by the ground pressure which is already high, if you added a similar amount of armor to a mbt you'd be almost the same weight with much worse mobility, hence this can't stop anything more than a rpg7 which is cold war tech.
@@al1ce90 I heard that some of the largest reasons of StrykerMGS' retire are its main gun is too old, and its autoloder is too expensive for its effect. I think neither of them happen at Japanese Type-16 MCV(Its main gun is developed for it. The gun isn't old).
@@al1ce90 @AL1ce No, it looks like L7 but deferent. It's new rifled gun developed for Type-16. Actually, L7 was used as Japanese Type-74TK's main gun, and Type-16 can use same ammunition. But it doesn't meen L7 is Type-16's gun.
This gives me flashbacks to when here in Canada we attempted something similar when a politician called to replace our fleet of Leopard 2's and Leopard C2's with the M1128 Stryker. Yeah that didn't go so well.
"Wheeled Tank" is a contradiction in terms. A tank's major advantage over wheeled vehicles is its great ability to traverse non road terrain. Well, that and armor. For a "support weapons platform", however, a narrower, easier to achieve, set of criteria is sometimes set. Shoot and scoot is a great idea for a defensive posture if the enemy plays by your rules. Modern sensors render that more problematic, as an AFV is more visible to Low Light Camera, Infrared, and RaDAR than a man with an LATW or a team with an ATGW is/are. About Japan as a regional power. Whichever nation Japan allies with will be the stronger for it. I would be sad if that nation became China. IMO, of the various regional powers; China, India, Bangladesh, Malaya/Myanmar, Japan has the longest duration and hardest won continuous naval tradition. India is the one with the longest running carrier ops history, but Japan's presence is a major factor in regional maritime stability*. *Such as it is
It didn't go well because the politicians would have allowed it to be used as a poor substitute for a tank, instead of what it was intended for, namely infantry fire support. Rather wisely, the military objected to the proposed purchase. Unless they've served in the military, politicians should stay out of military affairs.
Its basic form is 26 tonnes. Their homgrown airlifter, the kawasaki C2, can carry 36 tonnes and still carry enough fuel to roundtrip japan and then some,, So yeah, an additional 10 tonnes of extra protection (slat, ERA, composite armor addons, active APS etc etc) shouldnt be problem. Though… it might strain that powertrain havin to lug around an extra 10 tonnes. 5 tonnes should be ok i guess😅
I’m waiting for the Psionic School Girls Commandos. The PLA will have a hard time getting through Japanese lines when their tanks keep getting slammed into their warships!
4:33 i’m not sure this is the case. The type-10 was developed on the get go as a lighter MBT to operate in areas where the road/bridge infrastructure network cannot consistently support a vehicle as heavy as a Type-90.
A country made up of thousands of island connected by well-built roadways makes a wheeled combat vehicle basically a necessity. A 400km range on a diesel engine means that you can get these things anywhere in the country pretty quickly.
Exactly. They are a force multiplier, meant to provide fast response and support the MBTs. And since theyre wheeled and light enough, the can use public roads no problem. Maintain 80-90kmh, and ur they can reach hokaido from tokyo bay in about 2-3 days. Or u can just airlift them and theyll drop by in under 3 hours. Take ur pick😂
Put a RPG cage an spal netting along with reactive Armor plating will help alot. This weapon could be alot better an will surely have its comparison. Adding a ATGM Packs on its turret would really help this infantry support vehicle.
A16 is a very capable vehicle. More than a match for other none MBT AFV's around the world. It's also well ergonomically designed and the quality of the engineering is exceptional. It will be interesting to see what other variants are developed, such as anti-air weapons system..
Lack of IED protection seems a common factor in many Japanese vehicles, I guess that’s an advantage of not having to worry about carrying out COIN ops in the Middle East. The JGSDF is designed to fight on home ground so arguably they don’t need that capability as standard
What do you think happens to a tank with tracks, if an IED explodes right under it? You can say bye bye to them! A tank without it's tracks is a destroyed tank with a dead crew in a very short time...
Really good mate thanks👍 coming from an island myself, I agree with what you say when you mention that the air/sea is the most important but the army should be well equipped and outgun the perceived enemy in as many ways as is economically/strategically (needed) possible. But not at the expense of the navy & airforce 👌great video mate, cheers 👍
Too nice video about Japanese armoured vehicle type 16 MCV its characters & abilities of type-16 with clearly explaining of whole Japan military situation its requirements &its modern strategy among whole allies defense system in south China sea ...thanks for sending👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🦏♥️🇺🇸🤝🏽🇯🇵♥️🐗👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
It makes sense to use an armored vehicle with wheels. If the enemy shoots a wheel off, than you're still able to drive away, unlike with tracks, which will immobilize you completely, if damaged. And you are way faster on roads and fields too!
High mobility, high firepower and a decent protection against small arms fire. I can see it going before the main column and after reconnaissance units in the battlefield.
Japan actually sends its troops overseas. First time was to Iraq in the 2000s. As of recently the JMSDF has deployed forces to the Gulf of Aden back in 2019 when the situation with Iran got worse. Japan has also sent forces to South Sudan for peacekeeping operations and has partake with many other countries especially in SEA for training.
@@fanis1414 America has MASSIVE concentration camps. They are called private prisons and they are used for SLAVE labor. They are also FAR WORSE than the ones China is accused of having. They are even WORSE than the ones Germany had.
It’s (in my opinion) actually perfect for defending the Japanese main islands where shoot and scoot is the game. Different to other countries Japan’s mountains are covered with small go everywhere roads. No tracked vehicles required. You can walk up a mountain road I’m suddenly find a vineyard or temple on the only available piece of flat land. The other differences is that in summer The vegetation grows is phenomenal. Dense like the jungles of Vietnam. If anyone ever invaded it would be worse in the caucuses is for them.
Mobility is the most important thing on any battlefront in any war. They look very mobile. If they can move on all roads in Japan. Then it is a better tank incase of an invasion from an occupation force.
An interesting analysis of Japan's Type 16 Combat Vehicle. Cost savings and lower vehicle weight are key drivers of its design. Cheaper than a full MBT, but still having a 105mm main gun on wheels gives it firepower, mobility over existing roads & bridges. In a full tank battle, the Type 16 would not be sustainable, but all the modeling & predictions of conflict for Japan are still hypothetical. Japan's ground forces would still need sufficient man portable anti-tank & anti-air missiles in their combat brigades if the Type 16 is relied on as a main armored vehicle. Effective military planning should never be focused on one item or vehicle but take into account other arms to meet the unforeseen situation.
Those vehicles are easier to move around and they probably travel at a faster rate of speed to get to where they are needed and can be transported by air or ship from one island to another easily.
I didn't realise that tracks are mainly to spread pressure, not for grip. The tracks are essentially like the sand mats trucks can put down in the desert.
To my knowledge the JSDF can actually deploy overseas now. I can't say for a 100% certainty but I seem to remember something coming up 2-3 years ago about their legislation regarding JSDF usage changing.
Yes, defence of japan “and her allies”. Im paraphrasing ofcourse, but thats about the gist of it. For now, that updated constitution is heavily implied for their naval vessels. The JMSDF is pretty much a blue water navy. All it needs now is some proper set of teeth. And first off: upgrading their “helicopter carriers” to carry the F35B
The Type 16 MCV's shells are compatible with those of the Type 74 tank, and many of its crew have switched from Type 74 tanks.
3 года назад+3
Just recently UK started to think that their armored inventory is under-strength both quantity and quality. Japan needs to match her potential enemies in terms of armored forces which might have over-whelming quantity and some quality.
but UK invades countries, and Japan is forbidden rightly so from doing that. UK needs tanks for Syria, Iraq, even the Saudi regions doesnt it? Japan does not really need to build 600 tanks because Ghana bought 200 russian tanks. They need to deploy heavy guns around their land as quickly as possible, thats it. We have just seen russian tanks are struggling to cross Ukraine, china will have tanks based on Russia, these japanese tanks can hit fuel supplies and the chinese tanks wont get off the beach, then just scoot off, hit and run, hit and run, and boom the World turns up probably USA first to smash china.
Nice to see your channel showing off weapon systems from Japan mate. Do you know why the Type 16 MCV went will the 105 mm main gun rather than the 120mm main gun on the Centauro II?
As we tried to explain in the section on the Centauro, the ballistic protection of armoured vehicles used in amphibious landing and airborne operations is low. The 105mm gun provides sufficient firepower for this type of vehicle. Also, the Type 16 is not designed for direct combat with enemy main battle tanks. The vehicle is tasked with delaying the enemy until the JGSDF's main battle tanks arrive in the area. The Type 16 can also be used effectively against main battle tanks by setting ambushes and performing hit-and-run attacks. A 105mm gun is enough for this task.
@@WeaponDetective Wasn't the reason the Centauro went from 105 mm to 120 mm because the 105 mm was inadequate against modern MBTs, thus giving the Centauro II a better chance of stopping an enemy tank either by hit and run or ambush tactics as you say. If the Type 16 MCV can't penetrate their enemy's armor (MBT), then the only delays that the enemy tank crews would be having is manoeuvring around the burning remains of the vehicle. Surely by putting soldiers in a vehicle that only has the ability of taking out lightly armored vehicles and expecting them to take on anything such as a MBT would seem that they didn't learn the lessons from WWII.
@@aking-plums6985 I agree with you. The 105mm cannon isn't able to effectively deal with the modern MBTs nor with the frontal armour of the older MBTs. Against infantry, non-armored and lightly armored vehicles, auto-cannons in 30, 35 or 40mm caliber would be the preferred option for being more flexible and providing vehicle with the antiaircraft defense capability.
@@matovicmmilan Yeah mate, the French came to that conclusion when they were designing the EBRC Jaguar armored reconnaissance combat vehicle, combining the 40 mm cannon with MMP guided anti-tank missiles. These will replace their AMX 10 RC, ER90 Sagaie and VAB HOT.
The main thinking is that if Japan can't move its tanks from one island to another fast enough, so would an invading force. Also an invading force would be most vulnerable while it lands, that's why they need fast vehicles, to get quicker and attack the enemy while they are most vulnerable. Of course, a 105mm can't destroy a modern MBT, but it's good enough to do a mobility kill, and a tank that can't move, with destroyed optics and sensors is useless. The Type 16 doesn't work alone, helicopters, jets, drones, artillery and infantry will be there too. Modern warfare is all about combined arms.
Actually this vehicle may be better than their tanks because of the mountainous terrain of Japan and the fact that many of the bridges across the islands of Japan cannot support the weight of the tanks. Then there is the issue of fuel and how much can Japan store and protect from destruction. Japan may be cut off from oil and gas supplies because they are an island nation.
As the years past the technology gets hightech but more expensive to create and to maintain its the price to pay for the quality you can get it depends how much a nation can spend to produce a combat vehicle.
Good idea to have wheeled to supplement MBT, as cost of tracked makes it difficult to own many tanks. However the 105mm rifled barrel is a mistake, as it cannot penetrate modern tanks. A 120mm would have made more sense if you want anti tank capability. So in effect a Type 16 is only limited vs infantry, light/medium vehicles and some defences, but this could have been achieved more efficiently with a 30mm or 40mm gun which has the added benefit of also doing AA vs drones and helicopters.
While I see the benefits of your argument, what you propose would increase weight and recoil. That would make it less easy for air transportation (and defeat the design purpose of the MCV). Type-16 MCV wasn't designed as an anti-tank weapon. There are other assets for that. Keep in mind it was designed for Japanese military needs.
And you are wrong yes IT wont ne a big Thread to a mbt but the Homeland Advantage Could make Them Side Shooting so the best mbt IS weak. You also need to consider Shooting with a 30mm gun you need to be far Closer to the enemy wich ist Not ideal If you have Paper Armor so the Type 16 is more of a Sniper. I tought at First Like you why wont they Take the centauro 2b with 120mm. Well they don't Need. The centauro would be facing many mbt's in a war.
@@JaneDoe-dg1gv yeah! In near future all armored Vehicles will be useless without active protection system especially against UAV and attack helicopters.
Type 16 was only meant to tackle enemy landing forces, with China as the main potential enemy. China isn’t exactly known for its amphibious capability despite being a strong land power. The only possible landing zone for any invading country to Japan would be either Kyushu for China or Hokkaido for Russia, and Hokkaido already have most of the Type 90 stationed. Type 16 was meant to be the tank that removes enemy air assault force while type 10 removes enemy landing in Kyushu beaches.
@@tsumibito5796 I wouldn't bring this thing into the city where RPG might await around every corner and window. It's poorly protected for urban combat, imo.
Type 10 developed for replacing type 75 not to replace type 90 they are planning to build around 400 type 10 but and they realized that type 10 is good but expensive so they minimized the production of type 10 and choose the type 16 for it's cost. They still making both Type 10 and 16. There currently on debate if they should start a production prototype next gen tank that will replace the type 90 or make a upgrade pack for type 90 to kai version.
As an American if find it frustrating, that basically the entire free world's military doctrine is: last long enough until the USA can get there. Some countries like Japan and South Korea actually have a very capable military as compared to most of the NATO nations. To be specific I am talking mostly about Germany and France.
@Aditya Chavarkar I agree, Germany's military all the way around suffers from lack of funds and manpower. At least France is helping with the Turkey situation involving Greece and north Africa.
I read somewhere that japan felt that a day will come when they cant really rely on foreign powers to defend her. The least they can do is be on equal footing with their biggest allies, the US military. That being said, even being on “equal footing” will still take a proper amount of time, money and resources. Theyve started their modernization and expansion since the early 2000s, and the main priority was their navy and airforce. The thinking being, if the airforce and navy (very huge capital expenditure) is strong enough to deter agressors, then they wouldnt need such a formidable ground force. That being said, its better to have it and not use it, than not have it when u need it. So while it seems like the ground forces are taking a backseat compared to their navy and airforce, it is slowly but surely being upgraded.
And to add, i cant forget the two things that trump scathed on western europe. In general he was demanding answers as to why: -The big players of NATO (apart from the US) are not spending the minimum of 2% for defenses -purchase of russian gas still carried out in large quantities. Lefties ridiculed trump for asking these questions towards the EU at that time, and the europeans were visibly annoyed about it. Well ladies and gents, fast forward to 2022, and with russia’s invasion on ukraine, Will smith’s line in “i robot” comes to mind: You know somehow, saying “i told you so” just doesnt quite say it. I mean, im neither american or european and i could tell trump was right. Malaysian btw.
According to the Wikipedia articles, the Type 10 is actually not really a replacement of the Type 90. The Type 90 is a regular MBT, the Type 10 looks like one at first glance, but is actually a light tank, designed for operations in mountainous terrain. The main reason for developing the Type 16 is that Japan shifted its tank doctrine. Before, they split up their tank forces on several islands. The new plan is to keep all the tank forces on the main island and in case of a invasion, quickly ship them to the island where they are most needed. For that the Type 16 is better suited than a big MBT.
The Type 10 is an MBT by all accounts. Without its armor (a configuration that is most likely solely for transport), it weighs 40 tons - still heavier than the preceding Type 74. It's combat weight can range from 44 to 48 tons, which is almost identical to the Russian T90M/MS.
Most military fans don't have any common sense about China. China's military strengths are only on paper. For example, if a military weapon system wants to be useful, then they need to be at least 60 points at all parts and 90/100 points on some features. However, China system is different, they could have one feature which has 90 points, but in the same time, inside of this system, many parts are only having 10 points. As we all know the bucket theory, the effectiveness is limited by the weskest link. We could see this from their type 96B which dropped wheels. The type 99 should have more support from Germany so could be better which could put some risks to type 16. Other than that, well, none of other China tanks could pose any threats to type 16.
It is a cost efficient solution. First, if an invasion happens the attacker would have to balance between sending few heavy machines, many light machines or a lot of infantry. Plus, they would need to also ship a ton of supplies after the first few waves. So an invasion, from the sea or air, will not have mass heavy tanks, an the Type 16 will be more than enough to handle them. Having more machines like that on all islands is far better than having few heavy tanks on a few islands. Second, as the video said, to stop an invasion you would need air and naval power. The funds given the ground forces to prepare against an invasion are funds not given to the navy and air force to prevent it. Again, a cheaper ground force solution is better for the country as a whole. I'd say buying a foreign machine would have been cheapest and therefore best, but I suppose it was a political decision of national pride. The Type 16 would not make sense if Japan has a land border that could be invaded, so it would not work as well for South Korea, or the Baltic states. For Japan, it is just fine.
Since the role of this vehicle seems defensive in nature to be used in Japan which is mostly paved, it seems logical to rely on this vehicle rather than on off-road tanks.
The MCV was part of a new armored vehicle strategy that prioritized light air-transportable firepower. Originally the number of main battle tanks was to be reduced from 760 to 390, with most remaining tanks to be concentrated on the main Japanese islands of Hokkaido and Kyushu. Some 200-300 MCVs were to be procured and these would be airlifted to islands when and where they were needed. The idea was that the smaller, lighter, and faster MCV could be redeployed quicker than tanks to better defend the outlying islands. This represented a shift in Japanese armored vehicle structure from one designed to repel a Soviet invasion from the north to a more mobile force aimed at possibly defending against a Chinese invasion of the southern island chain. The MCV was intended to help re-equip existing divisions and brigades reorganised into mobile (rapid reaction) divisions/brigades, as well as equip new dedicated rapid reaction regiments alongside (eventually) the Light-weight Combat Vehicle System (LCV) which was also designed with defense of the outer islands in mind.
@@ataxpayer723 Thank you. This was very helpful. So air deployment to outlaying islands was a priority consideration in switching emphasis to armored personnel carriers with upgraded turrets over tanks.
big tanks are fine if you can keep them fueled, in a mountainous small region, they will guzzle more fuel and the few rideable roads conecting each city are an easy target for aerial bombardment, this means a heavier tank will be out of the logistical grid hidden in a mountainous region, if you got a lighter tank with wheels it can be fast enough to move a lot using the roads being a target for less time and making a better use of its fuel supply, if you get a cannon on the right places and dug it down it doesnt matter how well armored the chassis is, it can also pull stupidly fast counter atack maneuvers with 100km/h speed for a low cost, maybe the only thing that it could be improved is to have a 120mm gun, that would be a much more considerable payload against other tanks.
@Ignatios Nelson So according to you, US made defense articles like fighter jets, bombers, aircraft carriers, destroyers, nuclear subs, attack subs, etc. are all POS....and I have not mentioned SLBMs, ICBMs, AIMs, etc. So you know, the US made Strykers are highly survivable with V shaped hulls that can withstand massive roadside blasts----and that cannot be said for lots of vehicles out there. You can take a 155mm shell rigged IED to the bottom of a Stryker and the occupants can walk away with concussions but would survive and did not go to pieces. The Strykers come in many variants.....some serve as chassis and equipped with Hellfire missiles, Stingers and lasers as short range air defense (SHORAD), while others are armed with 30 mm cannon for antipersonnel anti light armor of AFVs (armored fighting vehicles) or IFV (infantry fighting vehicles) like the BMPs. Strykers are the backbone vehicle of the US mechanized BCTs (brigade combat teams). US made defense weapons are expensive but the best there are.......and do not mistake them with US commercial products.
The thing that made me sit up straight and say "WTF?" was when you mentioned that the Type 16 has a *rifled* 105mm gun, rather than the smoothbores which have become almost universal in AFV's over the last 40-some years. You did not mention what types of ammo are available to this gun, which was a significant oversight on your part, if you will forgive me for saying so. Rifled guns don't work well with HEAT rounds, which is why the smoothbore has become so popular. Presumably the Type 16 fires some type of a sabot round, but it won't be the usual APFSDS, not with a rifled barrel. I think we definitely need to know more about ammo types. Is there any chance of a follow-up video to address this issue?
Well it's derived from the british L7 which was used on the type 74 so i guess they wanted to keep ammo compatibility and heat works just fine in rifled guns only looses about 10% performance when compared to same calibre smoothbore . Also as an 105mm gun it's not really capable to engage modern MBT frontally smoothbore or not and for everything else it's more than sufficient . Taking into account the terrain where it will most likely be deployed heavy duty MBT wouldn't be able to operate there anyway .
Have fun explaining to infantry why they need to engage an enemy vehicle with no battle tank support because their shoulder mounted missile is cheaper than their tank
In Viktor Suvarov's book inside the Red Army, he said the Soviet military was confused about why western apcs/ifvs didn't have guns that could take out tanks.
Modern warfare is increasingly favoring smaller and economical vehicles that can yield the same damage output as conventional systems, but with weaker armor, higher maneuverability and lower cost. We have seen this ethic play out in wars in the Middle East and Africa, where machine-gun mounted pickups could often outmaneuver entire infantry battalions. We have seen that is Nagorno Karabakh, where small suicide-type UAVs could easily destroy fortified positions and heavier static equipment. We have seen that in the Philippines, where conventional tanks can barely even reach most of the jungle areas and small light-armored vehicles are the main infantry support vehicles. If Japan were to fend off an invasion, the ability to quickly maneuver and position heavy tank-caliber guns would prove crucial, so I fully agree with their choices.
Excelente análisis. En España tenemos el Centauro I, y puede hacer diversas misiones complementarias al los tanques de batalla principales. Y proporcionan una buena potencia de fuego en caso de ser desplegados en misiones de interposición de la paz.
Japan have over 6000 islands in total regardless of inhabitable nor uninhabitable and it's is logistically impossible to defend every islands by stationing ground forces on each island, hence Japan emphasized doctrine of amphibious assault to regain control of occupied island once enemy's force captured the island. Hence, this vehicle, advantaged by light weight and 105mm caliber tank's standard rifle gun are able to be airlifted to the remote island in short time as advance assault brigade's fire support vehicle before arrival of much heavier caliber vehicle. While 105mm caliber gun are underpowered, it is sufficient to decimate any amphibious assault vehicles and it do not need to fight MBT upfront; it will outflank their weaker side armor outright thanks to combination of mobility, turret stabilization to keep target on the scoop while drifting across terrain and C4I system aboard. It shared several doctrine with M1128 MGS which focused on asymmetric warfare and it's a potent vehicle deemed necessary since MBT can't be mobilized fast enough to take back island before enemy's MBT grasp a foothold on island's soil.
12:07, would the type 16 be useless?? In a war with China, anything with a cannon on it would be useful. Japan could use about another 4,000 of these vehicles, today.
The idea is to sink the enemy before they can even come ashore. Thats why japan has a pretty impressive navy. 4 aircraft carriers, 36 destroyers, 22 attack subs. And these r all relatively new, all from 2000s onwards.
![Japan’s New Rapid Deployment Forces [Explained]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bGKHiqjaa6Y/mqdefault.jpg)
![Japan’s New Rapid Deployment Forces [Explained]](/img/tr.png)
![China's New Armored Brigades [Explained]](/img/1.gif)
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective-Sea videos
ruclips.net/p/PLEMWqyRZP_Lr1-xIzFrM6xUHCOgetdkmp
Please click the link to watch our other Japanese Systems videos
ruclips.net/p/PLEMWqyRZP_LoGHZpbX_LShNT-UxMLomZJ
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective videos
ruclips.net/p/PLEMWqyRZP_LrdqB-XbqY2LocUVEaG_w7D
Looks just like South African Rooi Kat Armoured Car
Sir,it isn't asia -pacific it's indo-Pacific.Look at usa official statements regarding naming of regions of strategic importance.
Can you do one on the South African Rooikat please? TIA
@@julianemperor2554 Here is our Rooikat video. We hope you enjoy it.
ruclips.net/video/1RgZMljXF6o/видео.html
@@WeaponDetective Great channel. I would highly suggest you don't have background music. I firmly believe background music is annoying, distracting, and unnecessary (especially for information-dense educational videos). I also believe people want to hear you speak (and you do have an accent that makes it hard to hear) and get information and not hear generic background music that they have to mentally filter out and doesn't really add anything useful.
Short version: It's an economy tank. Not as tough as a full tank, but way cheaper and can do most of the same stuff.
Proved to be a effective strategy for the Sherman in WWII and sense the world's military powers are facing financial collapse I doubt anyone needs super machines.
It makes sense for them strategically too. Lugging heavy MBTs around Japan and it's surroundings is hard work that takes expensive equipment. Modern Japanese MBTs are all on the light side to begin with. A vehicle like this can serve in many similar roles as an MBT, but will be much easier for the JGSDF to deploy across Japan or transport to a nearby conflict, on top of it's economical advantages.
Wrong. It's not a tank. It's a cavalry vehicle and tank hunter. Just like the Centauro. It is specially useful because many bridged in Japan's rugged terrain can not support the weight of a MBT.
@@marneus arguably it can perform in many armored combatant roles successfully. Armor is high enough that small arms fire is negligible, and then at range the goal would be to not be hit in the first place. Doctrinal usage of the vehicle can make it effective in a similar vein to a tank, though not entirely as effective in a range of capabilities.
@@lepepelepub12 new procurement is always expensive, especially when it departs from established doctrines. But Japan's political stance has changed, it desires more force projection and strategic mobility so it can be more proactive in it's own defense and more ready to help it's neighbors.
In that context the economy of a wheeled support gun is beyond obvious. Moving MBTs across japan requires specialized railway and road transportation to protect infrastructure, as well as military landing ships and/or heavy weight transport aircraft. You need this to have mobility across Japan itself, to say nothing of deploying such forces some distance from Japan in a timely fashion. Japanese MBTs are already made expensive and fragile by the strict weight requirements of Japanese infrastructure and logistics.
Compared to all these specialized logistical assets that would be needed to create an MBT force with comparable mobility, the addition of one wheeled AFV that can be carried by smaller ships, airlifted by helicopter, and drive itself around Japan without tearing up roads, bridges, and countryside, is by far the cheaper, easier, and faster option. And once the use of such wheeled vehicles is established they are categorically more economical than tracked vehicles of similar role. So in addition to short term benefits related to the new military goals, there are long term economic benefits to the introduction of more wheeled vehicles as opposed to over-relying on tracked designs.
It is not just a question of finances. The Type 10 might be expensive, but the reason the JGSDF is not acquiring the Type 90 and the Type 10 in the same quantities as the Type 74 is that they have gotten too big. A tank is designed with a specific terrain in mind. The Leopard 2 is designed for the North German plain, so are the Abrams and the Challenger 2. The Merkava is designed for the Middle East. Japan is mostly mountains. A 70+ ton tank is not an asset there. It is a burden. Very hard to transport, very hard to maneuver, requires a huge logistical train...
Narrow roads combined with mountainous terrain and relatively soft ground makes classical MBT impractical in Japan. Western style MBT will most probably get stuck and immobilized very quickly.
Opposite was true when Japan fought in Asia though.
Can’t cross many of the smaller bridges
They type 10 is only a few tons heavier than the type 74; and is entirely capable of going to most areas that the older vehicle can. It is still worthwhile to have it as a partial replacement, considering the fact that the Type 90 is too heavy, and the type 16 is not capable of engaging better armored tanks with its 105mm gun. All three vehicles have their roles in the JGSDF.
Yes, i agree,,,
That goes for most of Asia, mountains or jungle
Wut? Wasn't the Japanese Groundforce mainly designed to fight giant reptiles that fire rayweapons from their mouth? I've seen many documentary films on this....
They never win :P
@@thhseeking Nobody does. Lol even a nuclear weapons cant do shit against godzilla.🤣🤣
They also fight against angels
@@romell06 bruh godzilla eat nukes
And giant insects and alien robots
Type 10 was not designed to replace the Type 90, it's an advanced supplemental design that will work with them, not replace them.
Indeed. The same goes for all bullshit about Economy Tank. It's a mountains tank. Means none other heavier vehicles will come on their way. Type 90 and Type 10 got a similar level of FCS cameras and sights. If the author would know about investment in Type 90... Nah, seems like he'd still talk shit about things he had no slightest idea.
Type10 was designed to replace type74
@@JOKER-tw3di And that has come to fruition that now, in 2024, the Type-74 is being retired.
Is everything Japanese controversial? Heavy MBTs isn't favored on Japan's road laws. Type 90 is too heavy to transport to islands around Japan. Type 16 can be loaded into a lamding craft. Japan is mountainous and has plenty of urban areas. Type 16 also designed to shoot and scoot and able to be transported by C-2 transport aircraft.
*Scout
@@bayuakbar1664 no not scout...shoot & scoot....as in shoot and haul ass
@@aaronsanborn4291 HA capabilities
Also who Gona bother with Japan it's got no Minerals oil rare earths etc it's Total Industrial power could be shut down by 6 submarines.. bit like UK We'd starve without shipping Same old Probs all islands have Uk is better Tank battle country tho Lol Everything is electronic now small powerfull intelligent missiles In small mobile cheap Carriers It's a new world 🌍
@@rogerpartner1622 only thing I can think of Japan could ship would be maybe obsidian since they are volcanic islands....but other than that all mineral resources have been very limited there
Well, this vehicle is meant to tackle enemy armored vehicles at a distance and conduct shoot-and-scoot tactics as well as support infantry in urban combat, and if it can do its job well, then why the controversy?
Maybe because it's Japan and fear Japan will rise again? I see history is often used against Japan post war.
It's controversial because some in Japan see it as a step towards foreign operations - as the vehicle is fairly light and easy to transport to places outside of Japan. And quite a good portion of the population is against any sort of foreign military involvement.
The right wing people don't like the Japanese Self Defense Force, that's why
I dont think japan will "rise up" again. Not soon at least. Japanese culture has changed alot, the samurai spirit is dead. The emperor is gone, and now they have given the world anime and efficient cars. They arent the same.
@@pleaseenteranamelol711 "The emperor is gone"
No he is not he still there what are you talking about?
Make sense for urban city fighting and rapid mobility requirement in city. Just need powerful munitions
HE rounds and armor piercing will probably be plentiful in these
As a side note, the deployment of the Type 90 and Type 10 was greatly influenced by circumstances: the number of Type 90s was reduced due to the end of the Cold War, and the Type 10 was due to the reduction of tank units as resources were concentrated in other domains.
In the 2010s, the tank quota was halved to 300 tanks, tank units outside of Hokkaido (facing Russia, where most of the tank units are located)and Kyushu (facing China) were to be eliminated in the future.
As a result, the Type 16 was assigned to defend areas where there were no tank units.
However, the SDF also understands that the Type 16 is different from a tank. Its main missions are delayed action, destroying light armored vehicles, and infantry support. If tank units arrive from other areas and counterattack, it will be in support.
The Type 16 is not very strong against tanks, but it has reassuring friends. The medium-range multipurpose missile, MMPM, is capable of multi-target engagement and is a trump card in anti-tank combat.
There is also a plan to create a family of APCs and other vehicles based on the Type 16, and this family of vehicles is expected to be the mainstay of the future JGSDF.
By the way, it's not at all controversial in Japan. There has been a discussion on improving wheel-based assets for decades. It took around 15 years and to finally get the budgetary approval.
its fast .....it can climb.....it hits hard .......its versatile .......its cheaper .........its a no brainer
It's fast on roads, can't compete with tanks on rough terrain and can't take a hit from any modern weapon
@@antimatter4733 Ive seen them on rough terrain ......they can climb up a hill faster than a tank can notice theyre being prepared for an ambush
@@discount8508 no offense but I find that highly unlikely. Unless the hill was made of firm terrain, sure they can have a higher power to weight ratio but they also have much more ground pressure and less traction, so on soft ground they're at a massive disadvantage, and once again, no armor
@@antimatter4733 yes .....the ground was firm .......and they were on higher ground before the abrams could get in any firing position .........the top of an abrams = 20mm tops ....another point its better to have something in position fast than something heavier thats going be too late for the party ...... their range is far better than a fuel guzzling tank like the abrams ........also more armour can be bolted on and armament can be whatever you want ie AT rockets , 105mmgun , 20mm gun AA ...take your pick
@@discount8508 real life isn't a shooting range with well compacted dirt roads, when you have to drive across desert sand, swamps and marches there's no substitute for lower ground pressure. Top armor isn't a major criteria for tanks but the Abrams has way more than 20mm, the majority of the top is 38.1mm or 31.75 over the engine, the only place that is 20mm is the blow out panels which aren't connected to the crew compartment. The Abrams is notoriously fuel hungry, when compared to a leopard for example the ranges are pretty similar. You can't bolt more armor on, once again your weight is limited by the ground pressure which is already high, if you added a similar amount of armor to a mbt you'd be almost the same weight with much worse mobility, hence this can't stop anything more than a rpg7 which is cold war tech.
Having served in a Stryker Brigade the Type 16 provides the same advantages as the Stryker. Speed, mobility, ease of transport and firepower.
@@al1ce90 I heard that some of the largest reasons of StrykerMGS' retire are its main gun is too old, and its autoloder is too expensive for its effect.
I think neither of them happen at Japanese Type-16 MCV(Its main gun is developed for it. The gun isn't old).
@@al1ce90 @AL1ce No, it looks like L7 but deferent. It's new rifled gun developed for Type-16.
Actually, L7 was used as Japanese Type-74TK's main gun, and Type-16 can use same ammunition. But it doesn't meen L7 is Type-16's gun.
Oh Boy, I cant wait to grind for this vehicle for 2 years in War Thunder.
Well, better get started right away considering it's sitting right there.
I can imagine it being a fasty boi armed with sabot lmao
Lol, it takes you two years to get a type 16... Rip
@@antimatter4733 Nah, it only need 2-3 month to grind japan tree(if only grind tank tho)
@@marderkpz7148 took me like 2 months to grind out the entire US tank tree while playing other nations and air...
This gives me flashbacks to when here in Canada we attempted something similar when a politician called to replace our fleet of Leopard 2's and Leopard C2's with the M1128 Stryker.
Yeah that didn't go so well.
"Wheeled Tank" is a contradiction in terms. A tank's major advantage over wheeled vehicles is its great ability to traverse non road terrain. Well, that and armor. For a "support weapons platform", however, a narrower, easier to achieve, set of criteria is sometimes set. Shoot and scoot is a great idea for a defensive posture if the enemy plays by your rules. Modern sensors render that more problematic, as an AFV is more visible to Low Light Camera, Infrared, and RaDAR than a man with an LATW or a team with an ATGW is/are.
About Japan as a regional power.
Whichever nation Japan allies with will be the stronger for it. I would be sad if that nation became China.
IMO, of the various regional powers; China, India, Bangladesh, Malaya/Myanmar, Japan has the longest duration and hardest won continuous naval tradition. India is the one with the longest running carrier ops history, but Japan's presence is a major factor in regional maritime stability*.
*Such as it is
It didn't go well because the politicians would have allowed it to be used as a poor substitute for a tank, instead of what it was intended for, namely infantry fire support. Rather wisely, the military objected to the proposed purchase. Unless they've served in the military, politicians should stay out of military affairs.
Wth… they wanted to replace an MBT with strykers?
Its suppose to support the MBT, not replace it. Facepalm
A wheeled "tank" can be a good addition but not a replacement for a MBT
While on joint maneuvers with the USMC, a Type 74 tank and an LAV-25 got giggy with each other, and the Type 16 was their love child.
If weight permits, Active protection will help these immensely.
Its basic form is 26 tonnes. Their homgrown airlifter, the kawasaki C2, can carry 36 tonnes and still carry enough fuel to roundtrip japan and then some,,
So yeah, an additional 10 tonnes of extra protection (slat, ERA, composite armor addons, active APS etc etc) shouldnt be problem. Though… it might strain that powertrain havin to lug around an extra 10 tonnes. 5 tonnes should be ok i guess😅
I thought Japanese already invented MCV where there's "new construction options" voice after deployed.
This is man of culture
I’m waiting for the Psionic School Girls
Commandos. The PLA will have a hard time getting through Japanese lines when their tanks keep getting slammed into their warships!
"Building..." "Insufficient Funds..." "Structure Sold." XD
We build for yuri
Building the Soviet Empire
A new location commander?
M to the C to the V
Cannot deploy here
Aaahh the nostalgia rushing in..
4:33 i’m not sure this is the case. The type-10 was developed on the get go as a lighter MBT to operate in areas where the road/bridge infrastructure network cannot consistently support a vehicle as heavy as a Type-90.
A country made up of thousands of island connected by well-built roadways makes a wheeled combat vehicle basically a necessity. A 400km range on a diesel engine means that you can get these things anywhere in the country pretty quickly.
Exactly. They are a force multiplier, meant to provide fast response and support the MBTs. And since theyre wheeled and light enough, the can use public roads no problem. Maintain 80-90kmh, and ur they can reach hokaido from tokyo bay in about 2-3 days.
Or u can just airlift them and theyll drop by in under 3 hours. Take ur pick😂
Put a RPG cage an spal netting along with reactive Armor plating will help alot. This weapon could be alot better an will surely have its comparison.
Adding a ATGM Packs on its turret would really help this infantry support vehicle.
Or gun launched ATGM - LAHAT
Type 16 is a beautiful looking tank
I was an artilleryman, but were I a groundpounder I would love to have one of these watching over us.
A16 is a very capable vehicle. More than a match for other none MBT AFV's around the world. It's also well ergonomically designed and the quality of the engineering is exceptional. It will be interesting to see what other variants are developed, such as anti-air weapons system..
This is a good tank, perfect for the terrain. This tank is never meant for invasion, it is meant for defense in japanese island terrain.
Lack of IED protection seems a common factor in many Japanese vehicles, I guess that’s an advantage of not having to worry about carrying out COIN ops in the Middle East. The JGSDF is designed to fight on home ground so arguably they don’t need that capability as standard
What do you think happens to a tank with tracks, if an IED explodes right under it? You can say bye bye to them! A tank without it's tracks is a destroyed tank with a dead crew in a very short time...
hello friend, we brazilians need a vehicle like this to replace our old Engesa EE-9 Cascavel, would be great for our region....thanks for this vídeo
Thanks for your interest. We will make the EE-9 video as soon as possible
I just realized that the number after the word type in the naming of their tanks is equal to the year they released the tank
Really good mate thanks👍 coming from an island myself, I agree with what you say when you mention that the air/sea is the most important but the army should be well equipped and outgun the perceived enemy in as many ways as is economically/strategically (needed) possible. But not at the expense of the navy & airforce 👌great video mate, cheers 👍
Man, Japanese wheeled ,,tanks" will be always giving me those Evangelion vibes.
Too nice video about Japanese armoured vehicle type 16 MCV its characters & abilities of type-16 with clearly explaining of whole Japan military situation its requirements &its modern strategy among whole allies defense system in south China sea ...thanks for sending👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🦏♥️🇺🇸🤝🏽🇯🇵♥️🐗👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
It makes sense to use an armored vehicle with wheels. If the enemy shoots a wheel off, than you're still able to drive away, unlike with tracks, which will immobilize you completely, if damaged. And you are way faster on roads and fields too!
High mobility, high firepower and a decent protection against small arms fire. I can see it going before the main column and after reconnaissance units in the battlefield.
This is a very flexible and capable vehicle, go Japan!
16式は90式を置き換えるものではない。どちらかといえば74式だろう。90式は北方防衛専用車両みたいなところあるから16式が代替するものではない。16式の役割は装輪式で自走してて移動出来ることとそして同年に採用されたC-2輸送機で運搬出来ることによる戦術的展開力の高さを活かした即応戦力となること。戦闘機のハイローミックスにも通じる合理的なもので別に物議は醸していない。強いて言うなら財務省に「おいこれ戦車だよな？戦車は高いから数作るんじゃねーぞ」ってゴネられないように「機動戦闘車」って言う名前にしたぐらい。
A good informative video, with a great analysis.
keep going !!!
type10 never meant to replace the type90
Exactly. It was to compliment the former
Japan 🇯🇵 needs to start exporting theses hardware
Japan has the rights to make there defence force to be more stronger just let them . Love japan love asians from philippines
Bataan death match....
Japan actually sends its troops overseas.
First time was to Iraq in the 2000s.
As of recently the JMSDF has deployed forces to the Gulf of Aden back in 2019 when the situation with Iran got worse. Japan has also sent forces to South Sudan for peacekeeping operations and has partake with many other countries especially in SEA for training.
yeah, but far away from actual battlefields with plenty of psychological counselling and support.
@@mrteacher1315 He stated that they don't send them overseas. Not whethey they see combat or not. I'm only addressing those issues.
Japanese soldiers are also deployed in Syria. For an UN mission in the Golan hights.
They also have a base in Djibouti
Under the Japanese constitution they can deploy overseas to support Allies.
I like it, but then again I've always liked Armored cars, and armored wheeled vehicles. Good video.
Japanese Self-Defence Force. Preventng Japan from becoming Hong Kong or Tibet since 1955.
Hong Kong and Tibet are better off under Chinese control tbh.
@@lucasgrey9794 no
@@lucasgrey9794 Yeah, who doesn't like concentration camps amiright?
@@lucasgrey9794 I’m hoping that this is a joke.
@@fanis1414 America has MASSIVE concentration camps. They are called private prisons and they are used for SLAVE labor. They are also FAR WORSE than the ones China is accused of having. They are even WORSE than the ones Germany had.
*Centauro* :whoare you?
*Type16* :I'm you, but kawaii.
It’s (in my opinion) actually perfect for defending the Japanese main islands where shoot and scoot is the game. Different to other countries Japan’s mountains are covered with small go everywhere roads. No tracked vehicles required. You can walk up a mountain road I’m suddenly find a vineyard or temple on the only available piece of flat land. The other differences is that in summer The vegetation grows is phenomenal. Dense like the jungles of Vietnam. If anyone ever invaded it would be worse in the caucuses is for them.
Mobility is the most important thing on any battlefront in any war.
They look very mobile.
If they can move on all roads in Japan.
Then it is a better tank incase of an invasion from an occupation force.
Ahhh a Rooikat!
Yup, only this vehicle is armed with larger gun.
@@Mandrak789 jep , but the Rooikat also had a 105 version, the SANDF felt they did not need it.
Rooikat platform but different turret.
@@Julia-fc4mp jep the turret looks a bit more advanced. Makes sense, they are used for quite different roles.
@@fabriciuslan the even developed a 120mm version
It is a pleasure to watch your videos you are the best man
3:03 looks exactly like that one scene in GuP where the Chi-Nu was founded
aye
@@pinktea8951 I rallied at least one fellow weeaboo (you). I have reached enlightenment
@@setsunahakanai Cause it's based on the image.
@@hardcasekara6409 My thoughts exactly. Thanks for confirming!
hello, Tenshimp.
An interesting analysis of Japan's Type 16 Combat Vehicle. Cost savings and lower vehicle weight are key drivers of its design. Cheaper than a full MBT, but still having a 105mm main gun on wheels gives it firepower, mobility over existing roads & bridges. In a full tank battle, the Type 16 would not be sustainable, but all the modeling & predictions of conflict for Japan are still hypothetical. Japan's ground forces would still need sufficient man portable anti-tank & anti-air missiles in their combat brigades if the Type 16 is relied on as a main armored vehicle. Effective military planning should never be focused on one item or vehicle but take into account other arms to meet the unforeseen situation.
Those vehicles are easier to move around and they probably travel at a faster rate of speed to get to where they are needed and can be transported by air or ship from one island to another easily.
I didn't realise that tracks are mainly to spread pressure, not for grip. The tracks are essentially like the sand mats trucks can put down in the desert.
*Insert funni Godzilla fighting JSDF*
Hello
I fall in love the MCV
The status of Japan military operations abroad has already been closed since they have sent already some troops abroad for peacekeeping missions.
its basically, a domestic stryker, but with a turret that has people in it
I thought you can click it and it deploy into a base ?
To my knowledge the JSDF can actually deploy overseas now. I can't say for a 100% certainty but I seem to remember something coming up 2-3 years ago about their legislation regarding JSDF usage changing.
Yes, defence of japan “and her allies”. Im paraphrasing ofcourse, but thats about the gist of it.
For now, that updated constitution is heavily implied for their naval vessels. The JMSDF is pretty much a blue water navy. All it needs now is some proper set of teeth. And first off: upgrading their “helicopter carriers” to carry the F35B
looks vaguely like a Centauro.
Yep, like a Centauro I
And Rooikat.
Looks like a Leopard 2 Turret on a Stryker if you had to ask me.
It’s a optimal design so thus the similar design.
@@stevenrith2386 Yes. French have similar vehicle AMX-10RC, only it's 6x6 instead of 8x8.
Love your videos just wanted to make a quick tip its better to time stamp with "0:28" and not "0.28"
Thanks for tip
The Type 16 MCV's shells are compatible with those of the Type 74 tank, and many of its crew have switched from Type 74 tanks.
Just recently UK started to think that their armored inventory is under-strength both quantity and quality. Japan needs to match her potential enemies in terms of armored forces which might have over-whelming quantity and some quality.
but UK invades countries, and Japan is forbidden rightly so from doing that. UK needs tanks for Syria, Iraq, even the Saudi regions doesnt it? Japan does not really need to build 600 tanks because Ghana bought 200 russian tanks. They need to deploy heavy guns around their land as quickly as possible, thats it. We have just seen russian tanks are struggling to cross Ukraine, china will have tanks based on Russia, these japanese tanks can hit fuel supplies and the chinese tanks wont get off the beach, then just scoot off, hit and run, hit and run, and boom the World turns up probably USA first to smash china.
This is a really great video! Nice job dude :)
*Type 61 exist*
Wargaming: Next update we are introducing the new Japanese wheelie vehicles in World of Tanks
Nice to see your channel showing off weapon systems from Japan mate. Do you know why the Type 16 MCV went will the 105 mm main gun rather than the 120mm main gun on the Centauro II?
As we tried to explain in the section on the Centauro, the ballistic protection of armoured vehicles used in amphibious landing and airborne operations is low. The 105mm gun provides sufficient firepower for this type of vehicle. Also, the Type 16 is not designed for direct combat with enemy main battle tanks. The vehicle is tasked with delaying the enemy until the JGSDF's main battle tanks arrive in the area. The Type 16 can also be used effectively against main battle tanks by setting ambushes and performing hit-and-run attacks. A 105mm gun is enough for this task.
@@WeaponDetective Wasn't the reason the Centauro went from 105 mm to 120 mm because the 105 mm was inadequate against modern MBTs, thus giving the Centauro II a better chance of stopping an enemy tank either by hit and run or ambush tactics as you say. If the Type 16 MCV can't penetrate their enemy's armor (MBT), then the only delays that the enemy tank crews would be having is manoeuvring around the burning remains of the vehicle.
Surely by putting soldiers in a vehicle that only has the ability of taking out lightly armored vehicles and expecting them to take on anything such as a MBT would seem that they didn't learn the lessons from WWII.
@@aking-plums6985
I agree with you. The 105mm cannon isn't able to effectively deal with the modern MBTs nor with the frontal armour of the older MBTs. Against infantry, non-armored and lightly armored vehicles, auto-cannons in 30, 35 or 40mm caliber would be the preferred option for being more flexible and providing vehicle with the antiaircraft defense capability.
@@matovicmmilan Yeah mate, the French came to that conclusion when they were designing the EBRC Jaguar armored reconnaissance combat vehicle, combining the 40 mm cannon with MMP guided anti-tank missiles. These will replace their AMX 10 RC, ER90 Sagaie and VAB HOT.
The main thinking is that if Japan can't move its tanks from one island to another fast enough, so would an invading force. Also an invading force would be most vulnerable while it lands, that's why they need fast vehicles, to get quicker and attack the enemy while they are most vulnerable. Of course, a 105mm can't destroy a modern MBT, but it's good enough to do a mobility kill, and a tank that can't move, with destroyed optics and sensors is useless. The Type 16 doesn't work alone, helicopters, jets, drones, artillery and infantry will be there too. Modern warfare is all about combined arms.
I like how you figured nukes into the video at the end. Binkov tends to gloss over that.
Actually this vehicle may be better than their tanks because of the mountainous terrain of Japan and the fact that many of the bridges across the islands of Japan cannot support the weight of the tanks. Then there is the issue of fuel and how much can Japan store and protect from destruction. Japan may be cut off from oil and gas supplies because they are an island nation.
Thank you posting this viseo
As the years past the technology gets hightech but more expensive to create and to maintain its the price to pay for the quality you can get it depends how much a nation can spend to produce a combat vehicle.
Good idea to have wheeled to supplement MBT, as cost of tracked makes it difficult to own many tanks.
However the 105mm rifled barrel is a mistake, as it cannot penetrate modern tanks. A 120mm would have made more sense if you want anti tank capability. So in effect a Type 16 is only limited vs infantry, light/medium vehicles and some defences, but this could have been achieved more efficiently with a 30mm or 40mm gun which has the added benefit of also doing AA vs drones and helicopters.
While I see the benefits of your argument, what you propose would increase weight and recoil. That would make it less easy for air transportation (and defeat the design purpose of the MCV). Type-16 MCV wasn't designed as an anti-tank weapon. There are other assets for that. Keep in mind it was designed for Japanese military needs.
And you are wrong yes IT wont ne a big Thread to a mbt but the Homeland Advantage Could make Them Side Shooting so the best mbt IS weak. You also need to consider Shooting with a 30mm gun you need to be far Closer to the enemy wich ist Not ideal If you have Paper Armor so the Type 16 is more of a Sniper.
I tought at First Like you why wont they Take the centauro 2b with 120mm. Well they don't Need. The centauro would be facing many mbt's in a war.
Tanks on the main islands this vehicle all the others makes sense
However it needs a active protection system of some kind.
All armored vehicles need active protection now.
@@JaneDoe-dg1gv yeah! In near future all armored Vehicles will be useless without active protection system especially against UAV and attack helicopters.
Actually, it’s the opposite. The MBTs are deployed on Hokkaido and Kyushu. The wheeled vehicles are intended for the main island.
Wheels are faster and mobile, tracks are slower but can over more terrain. There should be a mixture in the force.
Like always Trolls and armchair specialists ! Nice vid I was clueless about japanese tanks ! And the investigation sound cool tome !
Seems like the modern version of the Sd.Kfz. 234/2. I approve of it.
@Opecuted I have seen it. This seems more akin to the original design in my opinion though. The puma is abit more deviated in design principle.
Thank you Japan
Thank you JGSDF
Type 16 was only meant to tackle enemy landing forces, with China as the main potential enemy. China isn’t exactly known for its amphibious capability despite being a strong land power. The only possible landing zone for any invading country to Japan would be either Kyushu for China or Hokkaido for Russia, and Hokkaido already have most of the Type 90 stationed. Type 16 was meant to be the tank that removes enemy air assault force while type 10 removes enemy landing in Kyushu beaches.
Perhaps they could have added ATGM launcher. 105 mm is more than enough to deal with IFVs, but with ATGMs it could fight MBTs on long range.
Japanese wont be engaging people at long ranges really its for urban combat
@@tsumibito5796 I wouldn't bring this thing into the city where RPG might await around every corner and window. It's poorly protected for urban combat, imo.
ATGM aren't that great in mountainous areas, like Japan.
Type 10 developed for replacing type 75 not to replace type 90 they are planning to build around 400 type 10 but and they realized that type 10 is good but expensive so they minimized the production of type 10 and choose the type 16 for it's cost. They still making both Type 10 and 16. There currently on debate if they should start a production prototype next gen tank that will replace the type 90 or make a upgrade pack for type 90 to kai version.
As an American if find it frustrating, that basically the entire free world's military doctrine is: last long enough until the USA can get there. Some countries like Japan and South Korea actually have a very capable military as compared to most of the NATO nations. To be specific I am talking mostly about Germany and France.
@Aditya Chavarkar I agree, Germany's military all the way around suffers from lack of funds and manpower. At least France is helping with the Turkey situation involving Greece and north Africa.
I read somewhere that japan felt that a day will come when they cant really rely on foreign powers to defend her.
The least they can do is be on equal footing with their biggest allies, the US military. That being said, even being on “equal footing” will still take a proper amount of time, money and resources. Theyve started their modernization and expansion since the early 2000s, and the main priority was their navy and airforce.
The thinking being, if the airforce and navy (very huge capital expenditure) is strong enough to deter agressors, then they wouldnt need such a formidable ground force.
That being said, its better to have it and not use it, than not have it when u need it.
So while it seems like the ground forces are taking a backseat compared to their navy and airforce, it is slowly but surely being upgraded.
And to add, i cant forget the two things that trump scathed on western europe. In general he was demanding answers as to why:
-The big players of NATO (apart from the US) are not spending the minimum of 2% for defenses
-purchase of russian gas still carried out in large quantities.
Lefties ridiculed trump for asking these questions towards the EU at that time, and the europeans were visibly annoyed about it.
Well ladies and gents, fast forward to 2022, and with russia’s invasion on ukraine, Will smith’s line in “i robot” comes to mind:
You know somehow, saying “i told you so” just doesnt quite say it.
I mean, im neither american or european and i could tell trump was right. Malaysian btw.
That's the american doctrine to manage his empire (= all the world): allies can't be too powerful or make own decisions....
Interesting. Thx
??? Controversial !! Why ?
Almost every major power has a vehicle like this in some form !
Sgt, Semper Fi
"Controversial", just for the sake of views.
@@realtsarbomba Lol
Clickbait on RUclips, that must be a first. =)
you kind of do in form of wheeled infantry carrier like MOWAG Piranha but without 105mm
History probably. Japan keep say sorry for a while now.
Smart made, as future war won in the city, as city also perfect for a defensive position.
According to the Wikipedia articles, the Type 10 is actually not really a replacement of the Type 90. The Type 90 is a regular MBT, the Type 10 looks like one at first glance, but is actually a light tank, designed for operations in mountainous terrain.
The main reason for developing the Type 16 is that Japan shifted its tank doctrine.
Before, they split up their tank forces on several islands. The new plan is to keep all the tank forces on the main island and in case of a invasion, quickly ship them to the island where they are most needed. For that the Type 16 is better suited than a big MBT.
Type 10 is lighter compared to Type 90, but it is not light tank. It is main battle tank.
exactly, it is a lighttank, and it has complety modular armor, so it can be easy ship, never was a replacment for the type90 big boy
The Type 10 is an MBT by all accounts. Without its armor (a configuration that is most likely solely for transport), it weighs 40 tons - still heavier than the preceding Type 74. It's combat weight can range from 44 to 48 tons, which is almost identical to the Russian T90M/MS.
@@potatopants4691 The 40-tonne configuration is just solely for transport, it wouldn't go into combat like that.
@@thehumanoddity Yeah, exactly what I said.
Most military fans don't have any common sense about China. China's military strengths are only on paper. For example, if a military weapon system wants to be useful, then they need to be at least 60 points at all parts and 90/100 points on some features. However, China system is different, they could have one feature which has 90 points, but in the same time, inside of this system, many parts are only having 10 points. As we all know the bucket theory, the effectiveness is limited by the weskest link. We could see this from their type 96B which dropped wheels. The type 99 should have more support from Germany so could be better which could put some risks to type 16. Other than that, well, none of other China tanks could pose any threats to type 16.
It is a cost efficient solution.
First, if an invasion happens the attacker would have to balance between sending few heavy machines, many light machines or a lot of infantry. Plus, they would need to also ship a ton of supplies after the first few waves. So an invasion, from the sea or air, will not have mass heavy tanks, an the Type 16 will be more than enough to handle them. Having more machines like that on all islands is far better than having few heavy tanks on a few islands.
Second, as the video said, to stop an invasion you would need air and naval power. The funds given the ground forces to prepare against an invasion are funds not given to the navy and air force to prevent it. Again, a cheaper ground force solution is better for the country as a whole. I'd say buying a foreign machine would have been cheapest and therefore best, but I suppose it was a political decision of national pride.
The Type 16 would not make sense if Japan has a land border that could be invaded, so it would not work as well for South Korea, or the Baltic states. For Japan, it is just fine.
Since the role of this vehicle seems defensive in nature to be used in Japan which is mostly paved, it seems logical to rely on this vehicle rather than on off-road tanks.
The MCV was part of a new armored vehicle strategy that prioritized light air-transportable firepower. Originally the number of main battle tanks was to be reduced from 760 to 390, with most remaining tanks to be concentrated on the main Japanese islands of Hokkaido and Kyushu. Some 200-300 MCVs were to be procured and these would be airlifted to islands when and where they were needed. The idea was that the smaller, lighter, and faster MCV could be redeployed quicker than tanks to better defend the outlying islands. This represented a shift in Japanese armored vehicle structure from one designed to repel a Soviet invasion from the north to a more mobile force aimed at possibly defending against a Chinese invasion of the southern island chain. The MCV was intended to help re-equip existing divisions and brigades reorganised into mobile (rapid reaction) divisions/brigades, as well as equip new dedicated rapid reaction regiments alongside (eventually) the Light-weight Combat Vehicle System (LCV) which was also designed with defense of the outer islands in mind.
@@ataxpayer723 Thank you. This was very helpful. So air deployment to outlaying islands was a priority consideration in switching emphasis to armored personnel carriers with upgraded turrets over tanks.
If they land on Japan its over.
Japan get nukes so they don't want to come in the first places.
The important question, how effective is it against Kaijus?
big tanks are fine if you can keep them fueled, in a mountainous small region, they will guzzle more fuel and the few rideable roads conecting each city are an easy target for aerial bombardment, this means a heavier tank will be out of the logistical grid hidden in a mountainous region, if you got a lighter tank with wheels it can be fast enough to move a lot using the roads being a target for less time and making a better use of its fuel supply, if you get a cannon on the right places and dug it down it doesnt matter how well armored the chassis is, it can also pull stupidly fast counter atack maneuvers with 100km/h speed for a low cost, maybe the only thing that it could be improved is to have a 120mm gun, that would be a much more considerable payload against other tanks.
Indeed!
The type 16 is categorized as a light tank by the JGSDF and not a tank destroyer
This is comparable to the US Stryker with 105 mm cannon.........
Not really, more with Rooikat/Centauro.
>no auto loader
>rifled gun
sure man
@Ignatios Nelson So according to you, US made defense articles like fighter jets, bombers, aircraft carriers, destroyers, nuclear subs, attack subs, etc. are all POS....and I have not mentioned SLBMs, ICBMs, AIMs, etc.
So you know, the US made Strykers are highly survivable with V shaped hulls that can withstand massive roadside blasts----and that cannot be said for lots of vehicles out there. You can take a 155mm shell rigged IED to the bottom of a Stryker and the occupants can walk away with concussions but would survive and did not go to pieces. The Strykers come in many variants.....some serve as chassis and equipped with Hellfire missiles, Stingers and lasers as short range air defense (SHORAD), while others are armed with 30 mm cannon for antipersonnel anti light armor of AFVs (armored fighting vehicles) or IFV (infantry fighting vehicles) like the BMPs. Strykers are the backbone vehicle of the US mechanized BCTs (brigade combat teams).
US made defense weapons are expensive but the best there are.......and do not mistake them with US commercial products.
Is R and D / production done by the Japanese government or private companies like General Dynamics etc?
It looks a hell of a lot like the ROOIKAT vehicle from South Africa.
The thing that made me sit up straight and say "WTF?" was when you mentioned that the Type 16 has a *rifled* 105mm gun, rather than the smoothbores which have become almost universal in AFV's over the last 40-some years. You did not mention what types of ammo are available to this gun, which was a significant oversight on your part, if you will forgive me for saying so. Rifled guns don't work well with HEAT rounds, which is why the smoothbore has become so popular. Presumably the Type 16 fires some type of a sabot round, but it won't be the usual APFSDS, not with a rifled barrel.
I think we definitely need to know more about ammo types. Is there any chance of a follow-up video to address this issue?
Well it's derived from the british L7 which was used on the type 74 so i guess they wanted to keep ammo compatibility and heat works just fine in rifled guns only looses about 10% performance when compared to same calibre smoothbore .
Also as an 105mm gun it's not really capable to engage modern MBT frontally smoothbore or not and for everything else it's more than sufficient . Taking into account the terrain where it will most likely be deployed heavy duty MBT wouldn't be able to operate there anyway .
If you supply your army with shoulder mount anti tank missile, it will take out any armored vehicle for only 3% cost of a main battle tank.
Have fun explaining to infantry why they need to engage an enemy vehicle with no battle tank support because their shoulder mounted missile is cheaper than their tank
@@IKMojito thats why you never engage tanks in open battlefield with no armored support .
In Viktor Suvarov's book inside the Red Army, he said the Soviet military was confused about why western apcs/ifvs didn't have guns that could take out tanks.
Modern warfare is increasingly favoring smaller and economical vehicles that can yield the same damage output as conventional systems, but with weaker armor, higher maneuverability and lower cost.
We have seen this ethic play out in wars in the Middle East and Africa, where machine-gun mounted pickups could often outmaneuver entire infantry battalions.
We have seen that is Nagorno Karabakh, where small suicide-type UAVs could easily destroy fortified positions and heavier static equipment.
We have seen that in the Philippines, where conventional tanks can barely even reach most of the jungle areas and small light-armored vehicles are the main infantry support vehicles.
If Japan were to fend off an invasion, the ability to quickly maneuver and position heavy tank-caliber guns would prove crucial, so I fully agree with their choices.
Caterpillar vehicles are necessary for swampy places. Japan is quite an urbanized country. As well as Italy...
Excelente análisis. En España tenemos el Centauro I, y puede hacer diversas misiones complementarias al los tanques de batalla principales. Y proporcionan una buena potencia de fuego en caso de ser desplegados en misiones de interposición de la paz.
Japan have over 6000 islands in total regardless of inhabitable nor uninhabitable and it's is logistically impossible to defend every islands by stationing ground forces on each island, hence Japan emphasized doctrine of amphibious assault to regain control of occupied island once enemy's force captured the island. Hence, this vehicle, advantaged by light weight and 105mm caliber tank's standard rifle gun are able to be airlifted to the remote island in short time as advance assault brigade's fire support vehicle before arrival of much heavier caliber vehicle. While 105mm caliber gun are underpowered, it is sufficient to decimate any amphibious assault vehicles and it do not need to fight MBT upfront; it will outflank their weaker side armor outright thanks to combination of mobility, turret stabilization to keep target on the scoop while drifting across terrain and C4I system aboard.
It shared several doctrine with M1128 MGS which focused on asymmetric warfare and it's a potent vehicle deemed necessary since MBT can't be mobilized fast enough to take back island before enemy's MBT grasp a foothold on island's soil.
12:07, would the type 16 be useless?? In a war with China, anything with a cannon on it would be useful. Japan could use about another 4,000 of these vehicles, today.
china cant even take care of taiwan, let alone japan
The idea is to sink the enemy before they can even come ashore.
Thats why japan has a pretty impressive navy. 4 aircraft carriers, 36 destroyers, 22 attack subs. And these r all relatively new, all from 2000s onwards.
0:30 the only question i have at this point, Why are all the TD´s incontinent?