Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Kimchi armoured vehicles: K1, K2, K21 and other AFVs from Worse Korea


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

K1 test vehicle equipped with a muffler system to reduce sound. This prototype configuration was tested around 2006.      K1s of the Army Armor School using a setup derived from

Two 1/8th scale models by the Agency for Defense Development on the "development of armored vehicles for infantry fighting".    "Type 1": 25 tons, amphibious, 30mm cannon   "T

A "K1A1" at ADEX 2017   Maybe he was stung by a bee...  

A ROK T-80U from a photo shoot in the late 90s or thereabouts. This tank is still in it's as delivered camo pattern and not the now more commonly seen ROK-style MERDC camo that you see most ROK AFVs, including the T-80Us and BMP-3s using.

EfGXQGvWAAEhACj?format=jpg&name=large

 

Spoiler

EfGXLLsWkAIHosd?format=jpg&name=large

EfGXpRrX0AU0IIB?format=jpg&name=large

EfGXGUuXgAAslm6?format=jpg&name=large

 

Edited by Cleb
Adjusted wording since it is a single T-80U and not multiple
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2020 at 1:21 AM, Zadlo said:

I'm interested how good K21 would be as a torch in engagements against North Korean armour with such a lot composites in a structure.

 

EngVOkOWEAMSs5n?format=jpg&name=medium

DEFENSE STUDIES: Flaws in K21 Design Confirmed (defense-studies.blogspot.com)

point is, K21 is meant to swim, so it can't be that heavily protected.

presumably good sensors and great firepower should be +ve

north and south korea is an artillary location,  other kinetic threats are of a less prioritised nature.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to most on the Korean side of the internet, the K21 is resistant to 30mm APDS from the front and 14.5mm AP at the sides and rear.

 

If this is true or not I don't know but there is footage of one of the ROK BMP-3s firing an unidentified type of AP ammo at a K21 target (https://gfycat.com/PowerlessNaiveCowrie). The 14.5mm AP could also make sense due to the very wide usage of 14.5mm HMGs that the North Koreans use though I haven't seen any sort of solid evidence for me to say with certainty that this protection level is true.

 

There also has been research done to up the protection levels of the K21s though including additional composite armor blocks (Ceramics and NERA) and net armor though it usually comes at the cost of the amphibious capability the K21 has. 

djaskJV.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2020 at 12:41 PM, Kal said:

point is, K21 is meant to swim, so it can't be that heavily protected.

 

K21 has very heavy turret. Fire support version with XC-8 105HP turret is 600 to 1000 kg lighter than basic IFV.

That's why they had to use composites in the structure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that's fairly old (2009) but is interesting nonetheless. South Korea messed around with a camo system similar to that of the Saab Barracuda on the XK2 and K9 though I have only seen one picture of it mounted on the former that isn't a scale model. Not entirely sure what happened to the program though it's probably safe to assume it was quietly shelved.

LFhe8ir.jpg

32NgUOF.jpg

Spoiler

APPwZuf.jpg

nNp3CuJ.jpg

eFO5ldD.jpg

DCvz3FG.jpg

 

Edited by Cleb
Fixed image links
Link to post
Share on other sites

K1 test vehicle equipped with a muffler system to reduce sound. This prototype configuration was tested around 2006. 

 

bbGZMBz.jpg

Spoiler

nXEkSVu.jpg

 

K1s of the Army Armor School using a setup derived from the prototype.

 

yJaBPFP.jpg

Spoiler

vTPxD84.jpg

TjXi9ct.jpg

8hHKWzw.jpg

Zrcqpfw.jpg

 

 

Edited by Cleb
Slight correction on the picture caption
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Cleb said:

K1 test vehicle equipped with a muffler system to reduce sound. This prototype configuration was tested around 2006. 

 

bbGZMBz.jpg

  Reveal hidden contents

nXEkSVu.jpg

 

K1s of the Army Armor School using a setup derived from the prototype.

 

yJaBPFP.jpg

  Hide contents

vTPxD84.jpg

TjXi9ct.jpg

8hHKWzw.jpg

Zrcqpfw.jpg

 

 

 

Honey does this make my butt look big?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a sort of continuation from the K1 mufflers, here is a K2 with a similar muffler system.

 

I can't find the rest of the pictures from this event, none have turned up when I looked. Regardless it may have been a one off for testing or maybe even more specific for this event that the picture was taken with considerations for the noise being taken into account.

FdYcJ6D.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back a bit to something that Scolopax posted on February the 10th in the General AFV Thread.

 

This image was posted with a question being asked as to when it was taken

27b78dcaeac6358bdb51ec948a8acce0.jpg

 

One of the captions on a photo that I have from that event (using machine translators) says something along the lines of "On June 19th, 1997, tank units of the Capital Defense Command conduct a tactical training exercise at the Yongmunsan General Training Center in preparation against any provocation from the enemy."

fIqFK44.jpg 

(Some more photos from this event)

Spoiler

T1hfDgX.jpg

gSmc9sZ.jpg

FhuL92G.jpg

YzcZqzI.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By delfosisyu
      6
       
      I found a series of images describing development history of K1 88-Tank at some blog. But the post didn't note on its original source.
       
      Would you please help me out to find out the name of the book?
    • By Mighty_Zuk
      Here we will discuss all topics related to the LAND program, including, but not limited to, LAND 400 which is the flagship project of the entire program.
    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.

×
×
  • Create New...