This is provably false, just look at modern E.R.A, efficient in both weight and volume. I guess it defies physics.
It also doesn’t hold up at all for very high hardness materials where a monolithic structure performs far worse that a celled structure due to the way a monolithic block fractures.
This was posted on twitter a couple of days ago, not sure if it can be of any use or not so I’ll just leave it here.
Wdym defy physics by being lighter and more armoured?
Extreme example: tank with armour made out of gold is heavier and less protected than a tank with armour made out of titanium.
Also, ever heard of composites?
Also with your NATO MBT statement at the end. With the Leo for example. It gets heavier because they ADD more armour and not change the armour composition already build in. Look at the PSO sides and the 2A7 front or the Abram’s sides. Adding armour and changing its composition are different things and as many already stated, the armour weight increased on the type 10 anyways
Korea doesn’t come out as a subtree
560kg of armor doesn’t seem much.
Care to elaborate on the “plethora of other tanks” that have shaved weight recently?
Russian tanks used ERA to shave weight together with chinese, the materials used to shave weight on some tanks are some like the PUMA wich uses nanocrystaline ceramics for this just like the type 10 uses nanocrystaline steel, the table is a comparison between the increase in module weight, take into account that the Type 10 coverage its much lower than the type 90 wich means that yes the armor modules are both more tiny but at the same time heavier, its not any miraculous materials
ERA is efficient in weight and volume because of the explosive reactive part. Also ERA that isn’t specifically designed to interfere with high calibre APFSDS-rods does next to nothing to stop them, making it inefficient in both weight and volume against those.
But that is indeed a whole different use case than just some inert material trying to act as a wall. But I don’t see any ERA on the Type 10 we have ingame.
the type 10 cheeks act in a similar manner to that of the 2A6 ballistic shield that will partially disrupt the shell tarjectory wich will allow for the armor to stop what’s left of the projectile, current heavy ERA does affect apfsds such as relikt but they require high angles to work correctly against APFSDS that’s why they are normally placed in such a way in russian MBT’s the armor its a combination of high density materials together with some sort of shield to act as a way to disperse part of the energy from the shell, now regarding the armor, it weights 2.5 tons not 560 kg and this is for the hull
this is for the cheeks
if you notice hull armor its heavier because its concentrated in a much larger arch in front meanwhile the turret cheek armor its just centered in 2 spots of the turret
like i’ve said, its no magical material; they cut weight mostly in regards to components like external armor, frame and engine, You can even realize how tiny the silhouette of the tank is without a lot of the external components such as the storage boxes in the side, if you took a bit to read the table they even specify in the weight differences
I’d recon we aren’t pulling new elements out of our behinds anytime soon (they’d be unstable and unsuited for tank armor anyway) and the ones that are available we probably already tested and applied for armour by now.
yes, which take alot of volume, which the Type 10 didn’t gain. I’m also fairly sure the Type 90 already had composites.
Tbf I did not know that they managed to shave off a couple tons from diverse internal system and the frame, so I completely admit to being corrected there.
On the other hand, the turret only gained 559kg of armor, part of which is in the additional elements on the turret sides, so that doesn’t sound like alot.
The hull armor doubling in weight and that not being presented ingame seems alot wilder than the turret.
the armor at the turret aka turret cheeks gained 559 kg because of the new composite armor, you can realize that a lot of the weight lost its due to the new frame being much lighter than the type 90’s frame
the sheet says it added 560kg of turret armor over the type 90, I thought the discussion is about improved armour compared to the type 90? The type 10 also gained additional elements along the turret side, which will add weight too.
nowhere does it specify the cheeks.
is that your assumption or is there proof that it means only the cheeks? the side elements that the type 10 gained don’t seem like the frame to me, for example.
they refer to turret armor as the composite and as far as we know, the composite are located on the cheeks, right? we dont have any indication of armor in the sides so far and we have seen the type 10 without the storage boxes before so, no, that’s out of the question, Regarding the coverage, you can even find pictures above of the composite armor module from the hull and see how it fits in the hull, The increase in weight while keeping only the front covered and not sides means that there is a new, much more dense material in that armor
Did you even look at the picture? It shows a weight increase of 1,271 kg for the hull armour and 559 kg for the turret armour, as well as armour being relocated and consolidated at the front.
Examples of modern tanks that reduce weight while maintaining high protection include the KF51, KF41, and KF31 series, which are well-protected for their weight. The KF51, in particular, was advertised as offering equal or greater protection compared to current in-service tanks while reducing weight.
There are plenty of modern materials that offer more KE protection than RHA, and they have been available for a while. HHRHA has been around for decades. Armour can also utilise tungsten alloys, which are rumoured to be used in upgrades like the 2A4 WE. Ceramics such as silicon carbide (SiC), boron carbide (B4C), and aluminium oxide (Al2O3) can also be used, often providing better protection while being lighter than RHA.
Composites can also improve over time. This is not a new concept – just look at the Leopards, which saw drastic armour increases when going from B tech to C tech and D tech without increasing volume.
the armor its stated to be a mix in the composite and the ballistic shield that covers the composite that’s their classification of armor, there is a document going more into detail about this but idk if its ok to share it
And most importantly;
Not only does Type 10 have significantly more weight in armor… but it does so in less surface.
The glacis composite module is smaller, and the turret cheeks are smaller, too (disregard WT’s Type 90 cheeks, those are wrongfully modelled after a prototype, the real deal’s cheeks are much bigger)…
So it’s got nearly 2 more tons worth of armor in an about 33% smaller volume. You figure how that affects protection…
any source on that? That would indeed explain well why the frontal protection is better. It’s the first time that I heard the Type 10’s turret cheeks being significantly smaller.
Though I gotta ask, if the hull composite covers a smaller area, wouldn’t that just open up more of the front as a hefty weakspot, since the frame itself is thin? (pretty much only relevant for ingame, not irl, ofc) I get if the turret cheeks specifically are smaller, but the tank itself doesn’t have much smaller overall dimensions than the Type 90, so the hull dimensions should be roughly the same.
KF51 is 3 tons lighter than what tank? It’s built on a Leopard 2 hull, and specifically, it would be a replacement for the 2A7V, a tank that weighs 66.5 tons. That’s a difference of approximately 7.5 tons, not 3 tons. The weight diffrence from the type 10 was never armour, you would know this if you would have looked at the picture.
The end of my point was literally that this is the some of technology used in “modern” composites. Do you really not think that the composite improved from the Type 90 to the Type 10? Why aren’t other nations questioned when they nearly double the effectiveness of their composites, like the Leopards going from early 2A4 to 2A5?
You’ve done nothing but say “I think.” If you’re here to discuss the Type 10’s armour, please provide actual sources instead of relying solely on opinions and beliefs.
Yes, though it is worth noting the Type 10 did not shave off any of it’s composite armor, rather gaining composite armor weight.
It’s also significantly smaller, while composite armor on the Type 10 is exclusively located in the front. There is no side composites and from what I understand given the limited material we have, the sides are only meant to be protected from light autocannon fire in the current configuration, like you even stated yourself.
Between the 80s and the 2000s a lot of advancements have been made. That is two decades, in which development didn’t simply stand still, especially not in Japan. Type 10 for example is known to make use of grain hardened steel.
Well, Type 90 is of similar size, weight and protection as a Leopard 2A4. Type 10 is much smaller, with heavier composite armor covering a smaller area at the front only, that is also two decades newer.
Not necessarily. For some countries, those 20-30t of weight are still within reasonable usability, there is no need to make overly expensive lightweight armor when a heavier tank still works.
Japan made specific emphasis on weight because this was not possible, the 50t Type 90 was already seen as too heavy, so they would be more likely to spend more on a lighter tank.
I’m not saying other countries won’t or can’t make lighter armor, but that it might just not be cost effective to do so when a 60-70t tank can still traverse Europe for example perfectly fine at a lower cost.
