Japan Unveils Armored Vehicle Prototype for 'Counter Island

Long and narrow. Wonder if they really think it still fits to roam those tight alleys of those small Japanese mountain villages.

NEEDS AT LEAST 40MM AUTOCANNON, TRACKS, ATGMS, ETC

>>32678562
it's a prototype

Senkaku defense and amtrack

>>32678562
It's a troop carrier.

>>32678427
This POS doesn't need another thread.

How would it defend against invasions in the first place?

It's a fucking APC.

>>32679519
They want to use to to invade the Chinese mainland

>>32679540
I'd love to them try lmao

>>32679540
Well, at least they admitted that China has roads now. The lack of it was their downfall last time.

>>32678427
Genuinely interested: Does Japan have an aircraft capable to carry one or two around?

File: 395124d15471f422522ac9515c5c15d4.jpg (101KB, 705x727px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 705x727px

>>32679609
>Does Japan have an aircraft capable to carry one or two around?

Japenese Drop-Pelicans when??

File: Japan.jpg (171KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1280x720px

>>32678539
Its TALL and [b]narrow[/b]. I bet it flips like a coin.

>>32678680
Underrated reference

>>32679519
Because infantry require mobility and protection in an age of maneuver warfare? Is this a trick question?

>>32679609
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_C-2

this one and the P-2 are pretty neat

>>32679917
But it could be a good surfer and swimmer also.

The broken coastline and those inland water barriers of Japan brings up a lot of motivation to build an APC with an inherent taste of water.

I really wonder how it swims.

>>32680100
So C-2 can carry one at least.

>P-2
What's this one?

Is it amphibious?

>>32680500
No sir. No no no no no.

>>32680476
sorry, meant the p1

https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1

>>32680500
>>32680543

It has to be a swimmer. Look at that bow line, and although is more narrow, it's longer than most of it's Western peers to compensate volumetric buoyancy.

>>32680679
Ah, got you.

>>32680008
So, the Japanese are already preparing for repelling an amphibious invasion after it has already reached their shores?

Guess this speaks volume about their realization that they cant win the air and naval conflict.

>>32680893
Yeah buddy, but thats not what it means but whatever.

>>32680941
Then please tell me what it means? Wasnt the Type 96 enough as a quick-reaction battle-taxi to play fire-fighter vs. enemy amphibious and airborne insertions?

Why do they need a new one?

More survivable? Well, this just underscores my previous point.

>>32680958
>Then please tell me what it means?
It simply means they are still filthy rich, and therefore they can.

They are also highly advanced tech-savvy industrialists coming up with much more higher quality products than chinks even can.

>>32680958
The Japanese can't afford to put all their eggs in the Naval and Air basket. In the event that China lands forces on their islands, their infantry will need a vehicle that can move them about quickly, grant them a degree of protection and possibly fire support. I've no idea why they're replacing the Type 96 already, as the vehicles seem to be similar on paper, but we have no idea how their experience with the Type 96 has been operationally. The new one does have improved protection, plus "room for future growth" which is a must in this day and age.

In short, they need a vehicle like this, and the new one appears to do everything the Type 96 does with some major bonuses.

>>32680745
What next, portholes?

>>32682068
Are we in the fucking navy?

>>32682095
Well they're so the men can shoot out.

>>32682095
>>32682068
>>32682108

underrated.

>>32682068
>>32682095
>>32682108
>>32682124

I know Japanese are crazy rich, but do they Really afford Pentagon Wars?

To my best knowledge, only USA can afford that without a major flinch.

File: Japanese F-2.png (1MB, 2040x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2040x768px

>>32682237
Well, they sort of did back in the time...

>>32682272
But the F-2 was good enough that Lockheed used their modifications in the F-16.

>>32682294
Yeah, it had some good improvements over the vanilla F-16, but that's for an unreasonable price.

Pentagon-Wars style.

>>32682306
Oh, I thought you meant it was shit at the end compared to the original purpose.

>>32682318
Well, the Bradley isnt a bad vehicle. But it wasnt worth for what it did.

Looks horrible.

>>32682327
>But it wasnt worth for what it did

Please meme elsewhere. Pentagon wars was FICTION.

>>32682361
In terms of carrying men, it was pretty shitty.

And in terms of having sensors and shit, it still couldnt do all missions required, which is why the M3 was needed.

>>32682381
>In terms of carrying men, it was pretty shitty.

It was not an APC.

>And in terms of having sensors and shit, it still couldnt do all missions required, which is why the M3 was needed.

M3 is scout, you dumb faggot. It holds far less men, and far more ammo.

>>32682449
M2 experience mission creep during its evolution, it was suppossed to do everything alltogether.

Instead, it does nothing at all and hence needs specialized variants once again.

>>32682511
>M2 experience mission creep during its evolution

nope.

> it was suppossed to do everything alltogether.

nope

>Instead, it does nothing at all

nope

Pentagon wars was, again, a fiction.

File: hk_armored_vehicles6.jpg (74KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 640x480px

It just me or this gal looked like the same Singapoeran Terrex that got confiscated in Hong Kong? Does the Japanese copying the Singapoer vehicle?

>>32680958
>>32680893
japan have a long coast land and numerous island chain.

if China make a foothold on one of the island the Japanese want a quick respond vehicle to counter attack.

>>32684540
a lot of them kind of look too similar. terrex,amv, a third one i cant think of

>>32684687
just strap an outboard to the type 10. thing probably floats anyway

>>32685291
kek

File: hqdefault (2).jpg (11KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x360px

>>32678680