Jyu-MAT is supposed to be replaced soon anyways…
Maybe new turret will have MMPM or Type 87 Chu-MAT?
1 Like
There’s a few. In that picture the AWX doesn’t have radars mounted however, so that would mean a lower BR (and hopefully no APDS to raise it).
In that case I guess we’d have to make the opposite of a talking point usually brought up during vehicle suggestions; that being why we shouldn’t be able to use the radar.
Essentially find some excuse as to why it would be disabled or unfunctional on this specific prototype.
1 Like
I didn’t notice this actually, the tracking radar is folded but the search radar does not appear to be present. I think this combined with lack of APDS and worse mobility would make it a good option for 8.0 in rank V.
Now that I think about it, neither 8.0 nor the less preferable 7.7 BRs have any lineups, I suppose that’s a bridge to cross later.
1 Like
…Where do you see the tracking radar?
Isnt it the search radar folded and the tracking radar is unknown?
Is it not in the folded position at the turret rear?
2 Likes
I thought the tracking radar was the one with the circular disk no?
1 Like
pretty sure thats the search radar friend
Ohhhh I hadn’t ever looked closely at the back, I see it now.
Search radar is very different, the tracking radar is circular.
2 Likes
Usually mounted on the front or like the type 87 ingame on top
Well all talks about new ATGM on IFV is theory and guessing but I think both is wrong. Most likely it would be Type 01 LMAT.
About Type 87. There is some problems like low range can be seen (only 2km). Afaik this missiles is used in JSDF as infantry anti-tank units and seted on light vehicles like Type 73. And problem with the fact you need to track target all the time. The laser point targeting needs special targeting system equipped on vehicle. Also missiles is pretty old by the way.
About MMPM. I think this missiles is useless on an IFV because the vehicle is not capable of realizing the full potential of this missile.
MMPM and Type 01 both use an uncooled IR seeker and this fact limits the acquisition range to about 4-5 km (these are even optimistic figures). Yes their seekers are different but still the difference in range will be small.
The range of the MMPM is about 10 km while the range of the Type 01 is about 4 km.
The most important thing is that the maximum range of the MMPM is achieved either by launching according to radar coordinates and flying according to the INS using target search system or by a laser point (LOBL modes)
In a normal scenario IFVs do not interact with laser targeting units and I also doubt that anyone will install laser targeting systems on IFVs. Therefore, the missile cannot be used with laser seeker.
Of course the IFV will not have a radar either.
It follows that the MMPM is a much cooler missile than the Type 01 but the IFV can only use them from the same distance and with the same effective. Meanwhile the MMPM is many times more expensive due to two seekers, as well as a modern INS and target detection system.
And to be honest IFV doesn’t need to operate missiles with 10km range.
Therefore the use of the Type 01 looks to be the most effective and cost-effective.
4 Likes
Yeahh, that makes a lot of sense considering that Type 79 is literally a “Heavy” ATGM (and has more range and killing power), since it’s also meant to take out landing craft. If they wanted to install the Type 87 on the Type 89 IFV originally they would’ve done it, but they probably didn’t for the reasons you stated. So I’m probably wrong about that.
However, I’m a bit puzzled by why the MMPM cannot be used on the Type 89. It achieving 10 km range would be nice, but isn’t necessary since Spike LR2 has a range just over 5 km. Spike LR2 also has a range of 10km if launched from helicopters. Plus, the MMPM would replace the Type 79’s “heavy MAT” role in also being able to kill landing craft, which is important for the defense of Japan. Type 01 LMAT couldn’t really take on landing craft.
And regarding MMPM’s guidance, if laser homing is problematic, then perhaps they can just go with the single seeker utilizing infrared guidance. If they produce more MMPM for the new Type 89, the unit cost should lower…
But hey, maybe it really will be Type 01 LMAT, you never know
1 Like
What is the cute bulldozer called?
I wrote a bug report on the ICV (P)'s missing turret panel
The ICV (P) is Missing the Top Turret Spaced Panel // Gaijin.net // Issues
7 Likes
Komatsu Type 75, it’s a funny looking guy
It is getting replaced with this alien looking thing though
4 Likes
The good:
It’s not fake
The bad:
There’s very little information on the internet
“Research of taper-bore (Gerlich-type) gun barrel”
- the gun is not named but it’s likely that the document is talking about the 7.5/5.5 cm Pak41
https://www.jacar.archives.go.jp/das/image/C14011074900
Other information:
https://combat1.sakura.ne.jp/NATO.htm
The plan was to mount the Pak41 on the Na-To but apparently it never happened according to the site
Side and top view blueprint:
Aaand some performance stats for the Pak41: 7,5 / 5,5 cm Pak 41 L/57 auf Pz III Ausf.F
A bit unrelated:
Chi-Ha/Na-To Prototype
The Na-To was originally a 75mm Type I prototype mounted on a Type 97 Chi-Ha according to 試製七糎半対戦車自走砲 ナト
4 Likes
Just design a new vehicle already, I can guess what they try to achieve in this project, they want to cut cost from using old turret. But this won’t work because eventually they still have to change the turret, so just design a new vehicle and take what still can be used from type 89 and install to the new vehicle
Is there any proof it was a prototype though? As an English speaker I translated it with Google, and although there might have been an error or two, it seemed pretty vague on what form this vehicle actually took.
I did however read about a different Na-To variant in your linked page, one armed with a 75mm Type II cannon rather than the Type I. This would offer improved penetration and the Type 4 Kou round.
3 Likes