Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A new K2 variant has made it's debut at IDEX 2021, the K2M.   From what I all can see it's an offshoot of the K2PL though with minor changes, the hard-kill APS has been replaced with the sof

The side turret armor of the K2 has always thrown me for a loop. Maybe there's more than meets the eye but it's hard to say.    Regardless here's a picture from one of the discussions on the

Some more images of the desert variant K2 in Oman as well as a higher resolution photo of the image LooSeR posted. Sadly images of the K2 in Oman are fairly rare, there are plenty pictures of a demonstration desert variant displayed during defense expos. I'll get around to posting some of those later.









Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2020 at 9:13 PM, Cleb said:

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



"Type 2": 30 tons, not amphibious, 35mm cannon, equipped with ATGMs



The second one in particular reminds me extremely heavily of the Type 89 and Desert Warrior.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a vehicle specifically but a component for the then competing Samsung Techwin MPV was this "unique" RWS that was equipped with a K4 AGL and three assumed Panzerfaust 3 rocket launchers, albeit mocked up. These pictures were taken at a 2009 defense expo though this specific configuration of RWS was to my knowledge never seen, or at least had photos taken of it, after this event.










Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few pics of some of the overseas deployment of the K200.


Evergreen Unit, East Timor, 1999. About 20 were sent over for local security though due to the situation being more stable than expected they were withdrawn fairly quick.








Zaytun Division. These K200s were deployed as apart of the peacekeeping force South Korea sent to Erbil, Iraq, not sure about how many were sent over though.








Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2020 at 1:18 AM, Cleb said:

ROK T-80Us of the 3rd Armored Bigrade conducting live fire training at a firing range in Yangpyeong. The album these pictures were uploaded to is dated sometime around 2019.

Excellent pictures! 

Do you have any information about how korean soldiers like the T-80U? I read opinions that they really like these tanks, others say that the T-80 is an unreliable piece of junk... But sadly, these are barely more than gossip. What do you think, which is closer to the truth? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Excellent pictures! 

Do you have any information about how korean soldiers like the T-80U? I read opinions that they really like these tanks, others say that the T-80 is an unreliable piece of junk... But sadly, these are barely more than gossip. What do you think, which is closer to the truth? 


I really haven't heard too much from the tankers of the 3rd Armored Bigrade themselves but from what I have seen I err more on the side of mixed as far as how the T-80Us are received by the soldiers. Reason being the shortage of parts (though not complete lack of parts) and relatively high amount of mechanical issues probably in response to not being maintained as much as they should.


Sorry that I can't give a more definitive answer, though maybe if I can chat with someone in the 3rd Armored Bigrade we can revisit this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Cleb said:

Sorry that I can't give a more definitive answer, though maybe if I can chat with someone in the 3rd Armored Bigrade we can revisit this.

Yes, that would be awesome! 

Also I heard some gossip that the T-80 was rated better ergonomically than the K1, being a bit roomier inside. Would be good to know about this too. :) 

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.

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
      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...