unreason
-
Posts
3 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by unreason
-
-
36 minutes ago, Atokara said:
Laser warning system, the millimeter radar being integrated offensively and defensively, better placement of the radar than what we have seen with early shots of the 2A7 w/ trophy, automatic target tracking with the FCS, RWR, OECM
Electronic subsystems like that can be refitted to existing vehicles without significant weight gain, and present no inherent advantage of the base platform. K2 also happens to use a much lighter and more sophisticated APS.
Why the Germans would decide on Trophy with even domestic alternatives that outperform it is just puzzling.36 minutes ago, Atokara said:better strategic mobility.
Which K2 achieves by leaving its sides completely unarmoured and copying the Leclerc bulge, which comes at the cost of a gigantic gun shield weakspot, as weight in armour forward of the gun trunnion is inherently limited by the need to have it balanced for stabilised fire.
When viewed from anything but 12 o'clock ahead, the unprotected bulge even presents a third of the turret target area, part of the reason why Leclerc fared as poorly as it did in the Swedish trials regarding protection.
36 minutes ago, Atokara said:As for parts, the most common parts needing changed deal with the engine and transmission both of which have interchange parts with Leopards.
Engine and transmission are of similar design, but the K2 uses much more compact and newer types compared to Leopard 2, especially if they intend to sell the new Doosan engine and the domestic gearbox, although both of those are taking their sweet time.
36 minutes ago, Atokara said:For retraining crews, at least for the Polish program it was designed to replace T-72s, so regardless the crews would need to be retrained and a 3 crew autoloaded vehicle -> 3 crew autoloaded vehicle is a much easier switch.
Nobody is talking about Poland anymore. That ship's just sailed.
36 minutes ago, Atokara said:Also the K2 is incredibly future proofed against the Armata especially with KSTAM. Afghanit has been alleged to be ineffective against TOW-2Bs, so no way is it ever intercepting KSTAM
That's assuming that they were so utterly stupid as to not mount any armour on the roof, which might well be the case for the North Korean glorified live targets that K2 is designed to fight, but even Strv-122 does that, and T-14's crew hatches are suspiciously thick. Such a small EFP launched from a distance shouldn't be relied on.
That you even have to think of such a creative way to approach the problem just shows how close the 12 cm gun really is to the end of its upgrade potential.
There isn't even any physical reason why other 12 cm gun platforms couldn't also use that ammunition, or why you'd even want a big, heavy tank gun just to lob velocity independent top attack munitions. -
1 hour ago, Atokara said:
Norway on the other hand doesn't seem to have put such a time constraint on their program and still has considers the K2 a serious bidder. Purely off of merit of the vehicle and not simply political interference I would expect the K2 to win. The electronics systems and battle management systems that Korea has seem to be a much better offering than the Leopard. If Norway is offered KSTAM then that is a massive improvement in terms of firepower. The biggest factor is probably future proofing. The K2 is an almost brand new platform and is ready to take on the weight of any future upgrades while the 2A7 is almost 10-15tons heavier than the original 2A4 and isn't exactly in the position to be taking on another 5 tons the next time an upgrade cycle rolls around without seeing some problems. With the MGCS rolling around the Germans obviously aren't going to go "alright shut down all Leopard R&D immediately", but it will definitely take a noticeable hit in terms of first party support as the years tick on.
Why? What does K2 really add to justify the added expense of retraining and changing the stock of spare parts when both tanks are rendered obsolete by Armata?
At this point, it should be pretty obvious that the Norwegian and Polish programs aren't so much about acquiring a cutting edge tank for the next 20-30 years as they are about just barely keeping pace with the neighbours until a western tank with an unmanned turret becomes available.- Lord_James and barbaria
-
1
-
1
The Leopard 2 Thread
in Mechanized Warfare
Posted
The Hungarian contract includes everything needed to introduce an entirely new vehicle to their armed forces, from training to spare parts. Its cost isn't quite applicable to Leo 2 here.
K2's disadvantage regarding Norway is precisely that they don't have to pay for anything beside the upgrade itself if they decide to keep Leopard, while K2 would require expensive changes in crew training and supply management.
Leopard 2's mantlet never became better protected, just smaller, by integrating part of the moving mantlet area from 2A4 into the rigid turret cheeks in 2A5.
Since Leclerc's and K2's cheeks are much lower than their mantlets, this solution isn't available to them. The French never got around to it on their uparmouring projects.
Are you really sure that Turkey will be able to get it done? Russia's economic situation might be bad and progress on Armata glacial at best, but work on Altay is in a much worse state.
Moreover, the Turks are actually developing a domestic powerpack. Funny thing: The company involved is called "British Motor Company" somehow.
Their chances don't look too good if even Korea struggles in that area, but they might not be available as regional parts suppliers. It really seems like the plan was for Poland to assume that role.
Their next president might also make a lot of budget cuts to certain prestige projects, and confuse Altay for one of those.
How much of an advantage is such weight reduction when Norway doesn't deploy its tanks overseas and the even heavier Abrams operates in the tank traversable parts of Norway without issue?
Consider that their Swedish neighbours find no problem in making their Leopards even more obese. They didn't consider Leclerc's lower base weight much of an advantage in trials, either.
Marketing should always be taken with a grain of salt, especially for armaments, but that also applies to Armata, so consider that just the Smart 155 projectile alone is heavier than a whole 12 cm cartridge.
KSTAM might thus not have quite the same penetration power as the artillery shell.
No, they aren't, but limiting oneself to just one option to deal with a threat runs at risk of losing that option soon. What if the Russian military decides to implement an APS with coverage against top attack? Such systems already exist, like AMAP-ADS or APS or whatever the Rheinmetall thing is called.
That would leave only conventional AP projectiles as an option, and there are serious concerns that the 12 cm gun with just those might become less of an option even against newer T-90s. There's a whole history of Russian tank armour being badly underestimated, so it can't hurt to plan for the future early on.
Even the Koreans are working on K3 already, and the Challenger 2 with the 13 cm gun showed that K2 could also accept such a weapon. It already has an autoloader to cope with cartridges too long and heavy for human handling, although the turret would have to be extensively modified to make room for a larger bustle rack, or might need to get its shell replaced entirely, at which point one might as well buy a new tank - unless you're British.
I only read this before joining, and there was nothing about profile pictures in there. Did I miss something?