Thanks Alexander Clark @ Naval History for this story!
via AJW.
The Defense Ministry plans to slash its tank forces by more than half and redeploy the remaining vehicles to Hokkaido and Kyushu to meet the realities of the post-Cold War world, sources said.Ordinarily I'd be up in arms about a reduction in the number of armored vehicles in any army, but in this case it makes perfect sense.
The number of Ground Self-Defense Force tanks will be reduced from the current 741 to 300 within 10 years, they said.
The proposal to reduce tank numbers will be included in the new National Defense Program Guidelines, the government’s basic 10-year plan for defense and national security, scheduled for completion in mid-December.
During the Cold War, the Self-Defense Forces put top priority on preventing an invasion by the Soviet Union with its large armored units. The Defense Ministry plans to shift its emphasis from the defense of the mainland to the protection of remote islands, with China’s growing naval capabilities in mind.
After all tank regiments are withdrawn from Honshu, the SDF will deploy high-speed, highly maneuverable, lightweight armored vehicles to Honshu in their place.
Armed with 105-millimeter cannons, the same caliber as that of standard tanks, the eight-wheeled maneuver combat vehicles can reach speeds of 100 kph. In addition, the vehicles are light enough to be transported aboard C-2 aircraft, allowing the SDF to deploy them to threatened islands more quickly.
First, they're not giving up the firepower and shock effect of a heavy cannon. Second, they're a VERY highly urbanized country. Wheeled vehicles will be able to respond much better to enemy actions, without paying the penalty of having to survey roads and bridges to get them to the scene.
I do have an argument with the idea that transporting armored vehicles by aircraft is a reasonable approach but I think that might be more selling point than actual wartime utility (at least I hope so).
All in all I think the Japanese are taking the threat of future combat very seriously and are adapting their forces to face the future threat.
Armor: --Firepower, Mobility and Shock Action.
ReplyDeleteThese vehicles have all three, are cheaper to buy, and are simpler to maintain so they're more available.
i'd trade a battalion or two of USMC tanks for this vehicle.
DeleteHow many would you assign to a MEU? At the moment it would have one platoon of M1A and its company of LAV. Would you go for two companies of these Japanese vehicles to replace the LAV and M1A? Two platoons of these to replace the one platoon of M1A and keep the LAV's? Lots of interesting options.
ReplyDeleteHere in the UK despite having the suitable CVR(T) family of vehicles 3Cdo has never had a permanently assigned cavalry regiment. CVR(T) were exercised in Norway often but not quite the same as having them permanently assigned. Obviously these Japanese vehicles are a size and generation or two ahead of CVR(T). Cavalry for the RM is still something I think the UK needs.
couldn't agree more steve, RM's need something, and there are/were options http://amphibiousnecessity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/what-should-future-of-british-ship-to.html
Deletei'd do away with the M1 and LAV and rename the reinforced platoon it an Armored Recon unit. not only would they do the screening duties of the LAV unit but they'd also provide the shock and firepower fo the M1's. additionally with this new unit i'd get rid of the 25mm turret on the LAV and replace them with 50 cal RWS so they can carry a couple more dismounts and i'd get it done quick. imagine a armored raid using MCV with LAVs supported by AH-1Zs? pretty impressive in my opinion. hit quick get out quick.
DeleteGetting rid of the 25mm will help with the LAV's swimming too. Sounds like a plan! :)
DeleteAside from the sensors, armor and weapons, these kinds of vehicles don't look much different than a heavy dump truck or 18 wheeler cab.
ReplyDeleteI don't say this to put down these types of vehicles - I'm a fan of them - but I was wondering if a civilian plant that makes heavy truck engines or parts could be easily converted to make such vehicles if necessary.
well that is the holy grail of these vehicles. the use of automotive (albeit heavy duty) parts to make the manufacturing of them cheaper. its already being done and the best example i know of is what IVECO Defense is doing.
DeleteThe Type 96 8 x 8 APCs are built by Komatsu Limited. Komatsu Limited is probably the largest or second largest maker of industrial equipment in Japan. The civilian component of the company is probably far larger than the military component. It stands to reason that the MCV is also built by Komatsu.
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komatsu_Limited
I think the Japanese government has been distribution AFV manufacturing between Komatsu Limited and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, keeping both alive (in terms of military production capability) also having an ability to build if the need arises.
Correction 'Been distributing'
DeleteJapan may be signalling the fact they will not land an expeditionary force anywhere outside Japan (ie; China)
ReplyDeleteBUT, are preparing to fight an extended war inside the nation to find fix and destroy any invading nation's (;China) forces.
Speed, mobility and firepower without the heavy armor to fight maneuver battles and not conduct assaults.
Still a few heavy vehicles are needed just to keep the targets honest.
that is an almost perfect analysis of Japan's intentions and their defense posture. well done Zebra!
DeleteThe argument against wheels may be rendered moot with the new airless honeycomb tires now being placed on some ATV's.
ReplyDeleteRemember Solomon, most of Japan's tanks are the 1970s era Type 74s.
ReplyDeleteSo, Japan will keep some Type 90s (which can be only used on Japan's main island) and replace the rest with the even more modern Type 10.
As for wheels, vs tracks, tracks STILL win the ground pressure argument. You won't see a wheeled vehicle over 30 tons.
most wheeled combat vehicles are over 30 tons these days. Stryker, all versions of the MPC, the Boxer,...almost all of them.
DeleteGood protection vs kinetic projectiles up to 20-30 mm caliber and HEAT rounds. No protection against high caliber kinetic projectiles, like rounds from T-55/62/72 tanks guns, or anti-tank artillery.
ReplyDelete