Polish Armoured Vehicles

[Zadlo]

AMV XP during tests in Poland in the previous year. Polish APCs - just like Rosomak - will be amphibious.

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

[Serge]

 

Interesting.

https://www.targikielce.pl/en/about-us/news/south-korean-technology-showcased-at-mspo-2020,15244

 

[Beer]

We have discussed the K2PL project here on the forum few months ago. It looks possible that Czech Republic would join the project as well (there is quite a lot of talk about it in here). When the Koreans first brough the K2 to MSPO 2018 both Hyundai Rotem and Polish company HCP shared their presentation area with Czech CSG (Tatra Defence, Excalibur Army etc.) which is hardly an accident. 

[LoooSeR]

   Looks like this is K2 version for Poland, possibly will be shown this year at MSPO.

 

[Militarysta]

 

 

https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1281650-frag-out-magazine-30/5?

 

My article about 17 years Wolverine in service. So all about difficult APC Rosomak in Poland.

Enjoy!

[Valryon]

Borsuk's prototype hull(low quality image) from February 2020. Supposedly, prototype has already started trials in Drawsko proving grounds. 

 

[skylancer-3441]

 

 

 

 

 

photos of K2PL scalemodel from various twitter users

[Beer]

New turret or at least very reasonably modified as far as I can see. It will be intresting to see how much extra weight all that applique armor and extra volume of the turret front will add. 

[Zadlo]

Updated tank destroyers

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Beer]

15 hours ago, Beer said:

New turret or at least very reasonably modified as far as I can see. It will be intresting to see how much extra weight all that applique armor and extra volume of the turret front will add. 

 

Now I see that the hull is also redesigned because the driver is in the middle instead of the port side. 

[SH_MM]

16 hours ago, Beer said:

New turret or at least very reasonably modified as far as I can see. It will be intresting to see how much extra weight all that applique armor and extra volume of the turret front will add. 

 

It is basically an Altay tank with added APS but retaining the autoloader...

 

 

[skylancer-3441]

https://twitter.com/Militarium/status/1303364818972401669

 

 

[Serge]

15 hours ago, SH_MM said:

It is basically an Altay tank with added APS but retaining the autoloader...

 

With a 3 men crew and no Turkish components, wich is a little bit different. 

The gun mount is the same. 

[SH_MM]

It is obviously a bit different. But the shifting of the sensors/radars to the outer corners of the turret front, the reshaping of the hull front including the driver's night sight, the center hull driver's position, the hull add-on armor and the gun mantlet are all similiar to a certain degree. The arrangement of RWS and APS launcher is also identical - though obviously the chosen components for each tank are very different.

 

Seeing the K2PL proposal, I am still not sure that it actually meets a homogenous 60° frontal arc protection due to the odd "corners" of the turret.

 

[Laviduce]

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

It is obviously a bit different. But the shifting of the sensors/radars to the outer corners of the turret front, the reshaping of the hull front including the driver's night sight, the center hull driver's position, the hull add-on armor and the gun mantlet are all similiar to a certain degree. The arrangement of RWS and APS launcher is also identical - though obviously the chosen components for each tank are very different.

 

Seeing the K2PL proposal, I am still not sure that it actually meets a homogenous 60° frontal arc protection due to the odd "corners" of the turret.

 

The 60 degree frontal arc protection is not as consistent but directly from the front it has its advantages. Having a 2-crew autoloader flat turret design has the advantage that armor can be concentrated and protection improved by up to 74% compared to a 3 crew conventional turret of the same mass. That is what the South Koreans seem to have done. The French did it with the Leclerc to a slightly lesser extent. That also explains why the Leclerc has a similar mass to the Leopard 2A4 yet superior protection in terms of KE and CE resistance. This would also explain to some extent how a 55 ton vehicle (K2) can have similar head on protection than a vehicle that is 5+ tons heavier (M1A2 SEP v1).

[MoritzPTK]

2 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

The 60 degree frontal arc protection is not as consistent but directly from the front it has its advantages. Having a 2-crew autoloader flat turret design has the advantage that armor can be concentrated and protection improved by up to 74% compared to a 3 crew conventional turret of the same mass. That is what the South Koreans seem to have done. The French did it with the Leclerc to a slightly lesser extent. That also explains why the Leclerc has a similar mass to the Leopard 2A4 yet superior protection in terms of KE and CE resistance. This would also explain to some extent how a 55 ton vehicle (K2) can have similar head on protection than a vehicle that is 5+ tons heavier (M1A2 SEP v1).

 

Sorry, but K2 seems rather poorly protected. 

 

 

(Credits to Wiedzmin)

 

This tank was overall very badly protected (paper thin side armor) yet still 55t. Together with awfully sloped turret roof as an invitation for any semi modern APFSDS.

 

And for Leclerc vs Leo. The Leclerc offers better protection for bustle and turret side. Apart from that i can‘t get the notion of being better protected significantly elsewhere. For hull i think we both agree that Leo is way better, already design wise, and latest model base armor for Leo in early 90ies withstood LKE I so...

 

 

[Beer]

Based on the model the sloped roof isn't present on the K2PL. For the rest it's hard to say when the turret on the model isn't the same with the Korean K2. 

[sksslrkalqek]

11 hours ago, MoritzPTK said:

 

Sorry, but K2 seems rather poorly protected. 

 

 

(Credits to Wiedzmin)

 

This tank was overall very badly protected (paper thin side armor) yet still 55t. Together with awfully sloped turret roof as an invitation for any semi modern APFSDS.

 

And for Leclerc vs Leo. The Leclerc offers better protection for bustle and turret side. Apart from that i can‘t get the notion of being better protected significantly elsewhere. For hull i think we both agree that Leo is way better, already design wise, and latest model base armor for Leo in early 90ies withstood LKE I so...

 

 

 

 

 

There is a difference between the picture and the actuality.

 

There is no reason to leave the place empty.
 

[Laviduce]

14 hours ago, MoritzPTK said:

 

Sorry, but K2 seems rather poorly protected. 

 

 

(Credits to Wiedzmin)

 

This tank was overall very badly protected (paper thin side armor) yet still 55t. Together with awfully sloped turret roof as an invitation for any semi modern APFSDS.

 

And for Leclerc vs Leo. The Leclerc offers better protection for bustle and turret side. Apart from that i can‘t get the notion of being better protected significantly elsewhere. For hull i think we both agree that Leo is way better, already design wise, and latest model base armor for Leo in early 90ies withstood LKE I so...

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your reply. Here is my rebuttal:

 

Lets focus on KE protection. The Leclerc Series 1 turret frontal arc protection is rated around 550 mm RHAe against KE projectiles. Where as the Leopard 2A4 equipped with C-Technology armor is rated at around 420 mm RHAe against KE projectiles.  The Leopard 2A4 (C) front hull is rated around 400-450 mm RHAe against KE projectiles, where as the Leclerc's seems to be around 500 mm RHAe for the same threat.

Sources: Lindström Presentation (Leclerc protection and Leo 2 protection) and declassified British Documents (Leo 2 protection). Marc Chassilan and DarkLabor's book mention that the compact design allowed for the use of the freed up mass to enhance the protection of the hull and turret of the Leclerc.

 

 

 

Here is a graphical explanation of the flat turret design concept protection scheme:

 

 

Although both turret concepts have the same volume (mass) the 2 man flat turret design increases its constructive depth (protection) from 600 mm to 850 mm at the front!   IMHO, against a generic frontal 700 mm RHAe KE threat I rather be in the flat turret design than the conventional  turret design.  

 

Here are the early EPC (Leclerc) design concepts:

 

3-man full turret:

 

 

and the 2 man flat turret:

 

 

TC3 has a projected mass of 58 metric tons where as the TC2 has a projected mass of 53 metric tons. These 5 metric tons (or less) could be allocated to increase the vehicles protection. That is the route the French went.

 

The K2 went to extremes it seems where the side turret protection was sacrificed to improve the frontal protection even more!  This would also partially explain how a 55 ton vehicle can actually stop a K279 APFSDS round fired from the Rh L55. Using the generic turret concept I was able to allocate the new volume to improve the frontal protection by around 73% from 600 mm to 1040 mm !

 

I hope this clears things up a bit!

 

P.S.: This would also make make the rumor more plausible that the K1 and K1A1 turret (cheeks) have a KE resistance of around 450 mm and 600 mm RHAe respectively while having a relative low overall vehicle mass of just around 51-53 tons.

[SH_MM]

14 hours ago, Laviduce said:

The 60 degree frontal arc protection is not as consistent but directly from the front it has its advantages. Having a 2-crew autoloader flat turret design has the advantage that armor can be concentrated and protection improved by up to 74% compared to a 3 crew conventional turret of the same mass. That is what the South Koreans seem to have done.

 

I disagree. You should look at the actual tank and then wonder, where the actual armor is located. The existing K2 tank and a few details from the K2PL might reveal this.

 

Note the position of the actual add-on armor at the roof in front of the commander's panoramic sight (the first two plates from the front are "cosmetic armor" jugding by the lack of attachement bolts to the roof). This gives us a clear idea how far back the frontal armor cavities in the K2PL extend - very similar to the K2 tank (which is not a bad thing).

 

 

But now please take a look at the "corners" added to the left and right sides of the frontal armor cavity. They house the radar panel arrays and possibly assorted electronics. Note that they are attached using much smaller bolts, just like the very frontal element attached to the frontal armor (which is a thin cover to make the tank look "flush" and reduce RCS while having openings for the optical sensors of the APS), the plate covering the area next to the smoke grenade launchers (there is obviously no armor below there) and the area under the APS/turret bustle (which is clearly not armored to the same level as the rest of the turret). Such a cover is also added to the hull nose/beak in order to hide the cables running to the driver's night sight and head lights.

 

This suggest that the "corners" - or at least the outermost section of them - are fitted with cosmetic armor - i.e. pieces of sheet metal or plastic added to make the tank look more flush. We don't know if there is actual armor inside or not. Maybe there is some inside the "corners", we cannot say at the moment (and just from looking at a scale model). But what one can see from the exterior is clearly a cover to hide external components and possibly protect them against splinters/bullets.

 

From the K2PL's scale model, I don't see any indication that the protected frontal arc was definetly enlarged. There is additional side armor, but jugding from the enlarged coverage and the way it is attached, I would assume that this is the K2's equivalent of the German PSO, the French AZUR and the US-American TUSK kit, rather than armor designed to increase frontal arc coverage. Why would they use such externally mounted armor modules (and such a hugely increased hull coverage), if they wanted to provide protection on the frontal arc. The turret is a new design - yet the built-in armor for frontal arc protection wasn't extended.

 

14 hours ago, Laviduce said:

 This would also explain to some extent how a 55 ton vehicle (K2) can have similar head on protection than a vehicle that is 5+ tons heavier (M1A2 SEP v1).

 

Not according to the British evaluation.

 

3 hours ago, Laviduce said:

Lets focus on KE protection. The Leclerc Series 1 turret frontal arc protection is rated around 550 mm RHAe against KE projectiles. Where as the Leopard 2A4 equipped with C-Technology armor is rated at around 420 mm RHAe against KE projectiles.  The Leopard 2A4 (C) front hull is rated around 400-450 mm RHAe against KE projectiles, where as the Leclerc's seems to be around 500 mm RHAe for the same threat.

 

This is based on estimations and combining differnet sources with different criteria with proection values achieved against different projectiles. It doesn't seem like a reliable way to compare the protection levels.

 

The British Army evaluated the Leopard 2 and the Leclerc as part of the GSR(L) 4026; i.e. the Chieftain replacement program. They attested the Leclerc's protection level to be inbetween the Leopard 2 with Type B armor (350 mm along the frontal arc) and the Leopard 2 with Type C armor (420 mm along the frontal arc):

 

Both Leopard 2 (Type B) and Leclerc were considered inferior in armor protection when compared to the Chieftain with Stillbrew armor.

 

3 hours ago, Laviduce said:

The K2 went to extremes it seems where the side turret protection was sacrificed to improve the frontal protection even more!  This would also partially explain how a 55 ton vehicle can actually stop a K279 APFSDS round fired from the Rh L55. Using the generic turret concept I was able to allocate the new volume to improve the frontal protection by around 73% from 600 mm to 1040 mm !

 

Your logic doesn't work here, as the armor thickness wasn't increased compared to other tanks. Surviving the K279 is indeed impressive, but given that West-Germany claimed that they would have an armor package for the 55 ton Leopard 2 with protection equivalent to 600 mm RHA along a 50° frontal arc ready by 1995 (projected), it isn't exactly impossible thanks to achieve such a protection level at a similar weight thanks 20 years newer technology and some size reduction.

[SH_MM]

5 hours ago, sksslrkalqek said:

There is a difference between the picture and the actuality.

 

Source?

[MoritzPTK]

6 hours ago, Laviduce said:

Thank you for your reply. Here is my rebuttal:

 

Hey, i can't add much to SH_MMs reply, he already made it clear what i was referring to regarding the Leclerc vs Leo armor, because taking those british documents as a source is problematic.

I still also want to add that there never was any clarification or actual source for the claim of the K2 stopping a K279 projectile. (Feel free to prove me wrong on this issue)

[Zach9889]

44 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Not according to the British evaluation.

Would you be able to provide this source you are quoting from? 

[Laviduce]

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

 

I disagree. You should look at the actual tank and then wonder, where the actual armor is located. The existing K2 tank and a few details from the K2PL might reveal this.

 

Note the position of the actual add-on armor at the roof in front of the commander's panoramic sight (the first two plates from the front are "cosmetic armor" jugding by the lack of attachement bolts to the roof). This gives us a clear idea how far back the frontal armor cavities in the K2PL extend - very similar to the K2 tank (which is not a bad thing).

 

 

But now please take a look at the "corners" added to the left and right sides of the frontal armor cavity. They house the radar panel arrays and possibly assorted electronics. Note that they are attached using much smaller bolts, just like the very frontal element attached to the frontal armor (which is a thin cover to make the tank look "flush" and reduce RCS while having openings for the optical sensors of the APS), the plate covering the area next to the smoke grenade launchers (there is obviously no armor below there) and the area under the APS/turret bustle (which is clearly not armored to the same level as the rest of the turret). Such a cover is also added to the hull nose/beak in order to hide the cables running to the driver's night sight and head lights.

 

This suggest that the "corners" - or at least the outermost section of them - are fitted with cosmetic armor - i.e. pieces of sheet metal or plastic added to make the tank look more flush. We don't know if there is actual armor inside or not. Maybe there is some inside the "corners", we cannot say at the moment (and just from looking at a scale model). But what one can see from the exterior is clearly a cover to hide external components and possibly protect them against splinters/bullets.

 

From the K2PL's scale model, I don't see any indication that the protected frontal arc was definetly enlarged. There is additional side armor, but jugding from the enlarged coverage and the way it is attached, I would assume that this is the K2's equivalent of the German PSO, the French AZUR and the US-American TUSK kit, rather than armor designed to increase frontal arc coverage. Why would they use such externally mounted armor modules (and such a hugely increased hull coverage), if they wanted to provide protection on the frontal arc. The turret is a new design - yet the built-in armor for frontal arc protection wasn't extended.

 

 

Not according to the British evaluation.

 

 

This is based on estimations and combining differnet sources with different criteria with proection values achieved against different projectiles. It doesn't seem like a reliable way to compare the protection levels.

 

The British Army evaluated the Leopard 2 and the Leclerc as part of the GSR(L) 4026; i.e. the Chieftain replacement program. They attested the Leclerc's protection level to be inbetween the Leopard 2 with Type B armor (350 mm along the frontal arc) and the Leopard 2 with Type C armor (420 mm along the frontal arc):

 

Both Leopard 2 (Type B) and Leclerc were considered inferior in armor protection when compared to the Chieftain with Stillbrew armor.

 

 

Your logic doesn't work here, as the armor thickness wasn't increased compared to other tanks. Surviving the K279 is indeed impressive, but given that West-Germany claimed that they would have an armor package for the 55 ton Leopard 2 with protection equivalent to 600 mm RHA along a 50° frontal arc ready by 1995 (projected), it isn't exactly impossible thanks to achieve such a protection level at a similar weight thanks 20 years newer technology and some size reduction.

 

I was explaining the idea of a 2 man flat turret according to GIAT/Nexter. The illustrations show that heavier(denser) modules can be allocated towards the front of a turret without much or any additional weight penalty. In case of the 3 man turret i might only be able to insert 6 special armor plates where as in case of the 2 man flat turret i can insert another 2,4 for the same mass.  I rather go with the 8.4 special armor plate design than with the 6 special armor plate design.

 

36 minutes ago, MoritzPTK said:

Hey, i can't add much to SH_MMs reply, he already made it clear what i was referring to regarding the Leclerc vs Leo armor, because taking those british documents as a source is problematic.

I still also want to add that there never was any clarification or actual source for the claim of the K2 stopping a K279 projectile. (Feel free to prove me wrong on this issue)

 

These British snippets are indeed problematic because they contradict what has been reported in the Swedish tank trials (Lindström presentation) and the Hellenic tank trials. What Leclerc version was tested ? Was it an early series 1 model , a prototype , if so, which one?  In case of the Swedish and Greek trials we  know which versions were evaluated, in case of the British Chieftain replacement program we do not.

[BaronTibere]

I believe the leclerc numbers might be projections from GIAT, there wasn't a tank to test at the time of the chieftain replacement program iirc.