Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 142
  • 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

Some more pictures detailing the additional armor on the turret and hull of the K2.    

The various flavors of upgunned K200s

 

kVA8Jwf.jpg

Spoiler

K200s of the KAFV program:

 

KAFV-30M equipped with an MK30 30mm in a MT30K turret

nk6P2Jn.jpg

 

KAFV-30A equipped with an M230 30mm in an AV30 turret

rRIWV88.jpg

 

KAFV-25 equipped with an Oerlikon KBA 25mm in a turret that I can't find the name for

RpUPZwi.jpg

 

KAFV-90 equipped with a Cockerill Mk3 90mm in a CTG90 turret

kMGf8Df.jpg

 

KAFV-40/50 with a K4 AGL 40mm and K6 HMG .50in mounted in a DT40/50 turret

zFvJtU9.jpg

 

Two others outside the KAFV program

One being the one of the early K200 mockups which was shown being equipped with a 25mm cannon based on the M242 

kcAmyem.jpg

 

And the KIFV CPWS (Cockerill Protected Weapon Station) the photo of this vehicle was taken at ADEX 2015 and was equipped with an M230 in the CPWS turret

nbvpffv.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The K808 Command Vehicle recently finished development. Research and development began in 2017 and production of the command vehicles will begin in 2022.

 

Pm8dVeR.jpg

Spoiler

tUJ23Ld.jpg

xqBSXWs.jpg

n374l17.jpg

 

The K808 Command Vehicle prototype has been spotted in the past, this photo shows it on a flatcar being transported through Seoul in 2019

yZqowv9.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hanwha Defense just published a video showing some of their RWS offerings. Vehicles worth note are the Tigon and KAAV-7A1 equipped with RWSes. Both vehicles with the RWSes have been showcased at previous defense expos, though to my knowledge this is the first footage of them being used.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the years, more and more modifications appear on these T-80Us. The army doesnt make the job easier for a scale model builder :) I really want to build an 1/35 T-80 in korean colors, it looks incredibly good. 

A little bit back to T-80 reliability. If there is a lack of spare parts, why not produce them locally? I highly doubt it would be a challenge for such an advanced industry.

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...