Jump to content


Photo

Japanese tanks


  • Please log in to reply
194 replies to this topic

#21 Archie Pellagio

Archie Pellagio

    Now flouridating a water source near YOU!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montpelier, Vermont
  • Interests:Vermonter global conquest rampages!

Posted 26 October 2011 - 0257 AM

That's one of the things I've pondered for years, starting out as a kid looking at tanks and pondering external views and of course Japanese giant robot concepts. A surrounding view by LCD panels with interferometry combining multiple camera inputs seems like something almost possible with current tech.


It would be both easier, cheaper and more durable to just have helmet visor overlays similar to what the F35 has.

#22 pikachu

pikachu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,887 posts

Posted 26 October 2011 - 0450 AM

It would be both easier, cheaper and more durable to just have helmet visor overlays similar to what the F35 has.


This was already tested. The problem is that it blinds the helmet wearer to his immediate surroundings. Basically he'll see what's out there but can't see where his own controls are. Technology-wise there's a noticeable lag in the view because modern processing systems are not yet capable of handling the adjustments needed to synchronize the view to the movements of the human head. If we want to follow anime's lead, the solution is a helmet-mounted system that turns walls transparent while keeping objects inside the crew compartment visible as an overlay on top of the outside view. However, graphics processing capability for this kind of display is still some years off. Algorithmically,the helmet solution is actually far more complex because it requires creating display based on a dynamic point of reference. A ring of screens would be easier to implement (but probably less durable) because the display reference point would be static.

Actually, given the number of screens already inside a Type-10's crew compartment, I wonder why they don't just go all the way and turn them into MFDs tied to the distributed external cameras to show external view in default mode, kinda like blown-up versions of the existing vision blocks. Other information can then be overlaid on top of the view as requested by crew. In game terms it's like the dashboard in an FPS running on multiscreen display. AMD's Eyefinity technology is already capable of doing this with up to six screens. Check out the Eyefinity demos to see what I'm talking about:

Eyefinity

#23 pikachu

pikachu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,887 posts

Posted 26 October 2011 - 0452 AM

Doublepost

Edited by pikachu, 26 October 2011 - 0453 AM.


#24 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,636 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 26 October 2011 - 0909 AM

This was already tested. The problem is that it blinds the helmet wearer to his immediate surroundings. Basically he'll see what's out there but can't see where his own controls are. Technology-wise there's a noticeable lag in the view because modern processing systems are not yet capable of handling the adjustments needed to synchronize the view to the movements of the human head. If we want to follow anime's lead, the solution is a helmet-mounted system that turns walls transparent while keeping objects inside the crew compartment visible as an overlay on top of the outside view. However, graphics processing capability for this kind of display is still some years off. Algorithmically,the helmet solution is actually far more complex because it requires creating display based on a dynamic point of reference. A ring of screens would be easier to implement (but probably less durable) because the display reference point would be static.

Actually, given the number of screens already inside a Type-10's crew compartment, I wonder why they don't just go all the way and turn them into MFDs tied to the distributed external cameras to show external view in default mode, kinda like blown-up versions of the existing vision blocks. Other information can then be overlaid on top of the view as requested by crew. In game terms it's like the dashboard in an FPS running on multiscreen display. AMD's Eyefinity technology is already capable of doing this with up to six screens. Check out the Eyefinity demos to see what I'm talking about:

Eyefinity


Hmm, touch panels with interfaces on those touch panels would possibly make the screens more prone to damage. Not that the confines of a tank wouldn't make them more prone to damage as well. You're going to have to have some REALLY tough screens to begin with, and it's not like just hanging screens is that easy when space and stowage is a premium. (Not arguing about the MFDs, just thinking out loud).

I wonder how the displays for gunners on the Stryker ATGMs have been holding up? They're mounted on a rather interesting swiveling track to allow movement within the space but still position the screen/controls in a useful place.

Edited by rmgill, 26 October 2011 - 0909 AM.


#25 pikachu

pikachu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,887 posts

Posted 26 October 2011 - 1228 PM

Hmm, touch panels with interfaces on those touch panels would possibly make the screens more prone to damage. Not that the confines of a tank wouldn't make them more prone to damage as well. You're going to have to have some REALLY tough screens to begin with, and it's not like just hanging screens is that easy when space and stowage is a premium. (Not arguing about the MFDs, just thinking out loud).


Er, why bother with touch panels? Standard milspec hardened screens should suffice. Actually, the connection with Eyefinity came up because one of the shots purported to be the inside of TK-X (Type-10 prototype) showed three monitors dangling around the TC position. So they already did put the monitors in, it's just that right now they're all specialized.

What I'm suggesting is to redesign the display to be a bit like an FPS or WoT. Minimap on one corner with option to enlarge to one screen, simplified status indicator on opposite corner, again with option to enlarge to fill another screen to provide detailed info. Commlink indicators middle. Virtual buttons set up all around. Give TC a trackball, or a joystick with HAT switch, so he can click stuff on the screen. Most of the time primary screen real estate should be taken up by camera view, turning them into oversized vision blocks.

#26 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,636 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 26 October 2011 - 1235 PM

Er, why bother with touch panels? Standard milspec hardened screens should suffice. Actually, the connection with Eyefinity came up because one of the shots purported to be the inside of TK-X (Type-10 prototype) showed three monitors dangling around the TC position. So they already did put the monitors in, it's just that right now they're all specialized.


Touch panels are more intuitive and direct....though, not very hardened as I say.

What I'm suggesting is to redesign the display to be a bit like an FPS or WoT. Minimap on one corner with option to enlarge to one screen, simplified status indicator on opposite corner, again with option to enlarge to fill another screen to provide detailed info. Commlink indicators middle. Virtual buttons set up all around. Give TC a trackball, or a joystick with HAT switch, so he can click stuff on the screen. Most of the time primary screen real estate should be taken up by camera view, turning them into oversized vision blocks.


Yeah, I get that. Seems like a good thought process on the displays. I wonder if a stylus would be more appropriate and durable....loose the stylus though, hmm. MFDs can take time getting used to but that's what training is for. The Tesla Pods for the old Battletech game were rather nice, but you could quickly get overloaded with information to manage. Training/Practice time again though. The biggest complaint I had was only having a front view and no side views.

#27 Guest_JamesG123_*

Guest_JamesG123_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 October 2011 - 1505 PM

Er, why bother with touch panels?


Literally, "Point and shoot", and "drag and drop" calls for fire. etc.

But no, they would never survive your average knuckle dragging tanker and the nasty, dirty environment of an AFV interior.

#28 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,427 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 November 2012 - 0835 AM

Found a video with some close up shots on the type 10 including the in-coming missle warning sensors.



#29 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,854 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2015 - 2337 PM

Does anyone have any specific info regarding the performance/capabilities of the Type 61's stereoscopic rangefinder?



#30 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,427 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2015 - 2344 PM

Does anyone have any specific info regarding the performance/capabilities of the Type 61's stereoscopic rangefinder?

 

Check back to the other thread :)

 

http://www.tank-net....64#entry1139490


Edited by JasonJ, 09 January 2015 - 2345 PM.


#31 Ifor

Ifor

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England(on loan from God's country. Wales 400miles of coastline all facing the Sea. Who's coat is this jacket hanging on floor?
  • Interests:Anything military, cryptozoology, crime, zoology,

Posted 10 January 2015 - 0429 AM

This might seem a silly question but still. How do the external sensors stand up to punishment in an urban setting? I realise that they wouldn't have been put on the vehicle if they weren't hardened sufficiently but the question, in my mind still arises. Does the Merkava 4 have comparable system? If so how has it stood up? The question could be posed for any modern vehicle in a urban scenario. Have they been shown to be robust enough

Edited by Ifor, 10 January 2015 - 0430 AM.


#32 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,427 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2015 - 0039 AM

This might seem a silly question but still. How do the external sensors stand up to punishment in an urban setting? I realise that they wouldn't have been put on the vehicle if they weren't hardened sufficiently but the question, in my mind still arises. Does the Merkava 4 have comparable system? If so how has it stood up? The question could be posed for any modern vehicle in a urban scenario. Have they been shown to be robust enough

 

I would imagine they could get shot up. But that would result only in partial visual damage. But maybe they are mostly bullet proof up to 8mm.

 

 

A video showing a mobility comparison between the Type 10, Type 90, and Type 74. Comparison made in:

 

-turret rotation speed

-forward speed

-reverse speed

-slalom driving speed

-hull rotation speed

 

From the video, some points:

While the Type 10 has a smaller hull than the Type 90, the modules mounted on the Type 10 turret make it look big compared to the Type 90. The Type 90 turret rotates slow, even slower than the Type 74, because of the heavy turret but rotates smoothly. While the Type 90 with 1500hp engine weighs 50 tons and the Type 10 with 1200hp engine weighs 44 tons, the Types 10's continuously viable transmission adds to its acceleration speed advantage. The Type 10 is the first tank in the world to have a continuously viable transmission. The Type 10 is able to do slalom maneuvers while attacking.

 


Edited by JasonJ, 11 January 2015 - 0039 AM.


#33 Sovngard

Sovngard

    Honorary staff member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 661 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels city-state, Belgium
  • Interests:various

Posted 11 January 2015 - 0643 AM

I saw this video several month ago.

  • It is too bad that mobility comparison between the Type 90 and the Type 10 is not fair : the first must drive on snowy grass and the latter on asphalt.
  • I was surprised to see how the Type 74 turret still rotates faster than the one of its successor.

This is still an interesting video.



#34 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,427 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2015 - 0728 AM

I saw this video several month ago.

  • It is too bad that mobility comparison between the Type 90 and the Type 10 is not fair : the first must drive on snowy grass and the latter on asphalt.
  • I was surprised to see how the Type 74 turret still rotates faster than the one of its successor.

This is still an interesting video.

 

Yep, some one in the comments section also said that only the Type 10 was not in the snow during the dash run. So it's either (1) the difference between between the snow path and the slushy road is not worth the fuss, or (2) the video's true purpose is to advertise how super wonderfully great the Type 10 is.


Edited by JasonJ, 11 January 2015 - 0728 AM.


#35 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,291 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 11 January 2015 - 0729 AM

I've read through Wikipedia's article on the Type 10 a few times now, it was the first bit of information I had seen calling it anything other than TK-X or MBT-X designation.

 

What surprises me the most in this discussion as that the Type 10 is supposed to replace all of the older tanks still in service with the JGSDF.  While I can at least assume there's a number of Type 74's kicking around, I thought the Type 61 would be long since removed from any active duty at all - perhaps not even used for training anymore these days?  It'd make a great gate guardian vehicle though.

 

The fact that the Type 90 cannot contra-rotate its tracks is curious.  Are there any current Western MBT's which are unable to do this? 



#36 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,427 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2015 - 0833 AM

There is a mid term defense equipment plan released in 2014. http://www.mod.go.jp..._seibi26-30.pdf

 

Currently 66 Type 10s have been made. 44 more are planned by 2018 making 100 Type 10 tanks. The plan is to cut the number of tanks down to as low as 300. The Type 74s have been getting withdrawn at a fast rate, said at a rate of 40 tanks per year in the Japanese wiki. So I guess by 2018, it'll be 100 Type 10s and 200+ Type 90s, mostly to be in Kyushu and Hokkaido. The Japanese are going for a more mobile design military. That's where those new C-2 transport planes come in. The cut in tank power will probably be seen to be made up with the Maneuver Combat Vehicle (the 8 wheeler with the 105mm cannon). 99 of those are planned.

 

Something else that caught my eye in the plan, not too surprising but, seems beyond consideration now and likely to be added by 2018: 52 AAV7s, 17 Ospreys, and 28 F-35As



#37 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,090 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 11 January 2015 - 0902 AM

What kind of CVT does the Type 10 mount?



#38 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,427 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2015 - 0914 AM

What kind of CVT does the Type 10 mount?


Hydro-Mechanical Transmission

#39 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,090 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 11 January 2015 - 1008 AM

 

What kind of CVT does the Type 10 mount?


Hydro-Mechanical Transmission

 

 

Split hydraulic-mechanical, then. Interesting.



#40 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 11 January 2015 - 1123 AM

This might seem a silly question but still. How do the external sensors stand up to punishment in an urban setting? I realise that they wouldn't have been put on the vehicle if they weren't hardened sufficiently but the question, in my mind still arises. Does the Merkava 4 have comparable system? If so how has it stood up? The question could be posed for any modern vehicle in a urban scenario. Have they been shown to be robust enough

Judging by the condition of the Syrian T-72 and other accounts I have read about urban fighting, none of it will last long and nowwhere enough spares will be in stock.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users