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

It is also possible, or perhaps even likely, that .50+ RCWS will be a major part of anti-drone, anti-loitering munition point defenses in the coming years. Having the ability to host one provides substantial self protection ability against said threat which is oh so fashionable to talk about nowadays. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest the RWS integration will be partly responsible for the command, control, communications, and computing (C4) capability,  basically (Kongsberg) an integral part of the K9's digital architecture and fire-control system.  Otherwise they would just chosen Australia's EOS RWS for the australian market.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of an unfortunate accident with a K1.

This happened back in 2003 where this K1 was driving along a road in the early morning towards a training center near Sanjeong Lake when on a narrow strip of road they were on a collision course with a bus. The commander of the tank ordered the driver to try and avoid a collision with said bus but broke the guard rail and fell 4.5 meters into the dry river bed. The commander and loader both died while the gunner suffered a fractured knee and the driver suffered minor scrapes.

 

Itbha3g.jpg

Spoiler

S0NEH63.jpg

XLjH6S3.jpg

N89HitB.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the NERA specifically placed in order to fortify the crew compartment in the turret? The line of NERA on top, between the patches for the crew hatches (?), is also placed interesting. Image suggest, that NERA placement on top, is to protect the area's where the blue stuff is not possible?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 Korean side of the internet on the protection of the side turret wall1YLzpaF.jpg

 

And the unwatermarked slides that SH_MM posted

Spoiler

aBL1uUY.png

mh1hu1x.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2021 at 3:38 PM, Cleb said:

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.

I don't really see it as much of an issue. The K2 seems to be protected against the most common CE threats it would see in combat. As for KE threats, pretty much any actual cannon will punch through every MBTs side armor. Based on the frontal estimates of the armor, KSAP CERMET seems to be pretty effective and with what looks to be around 80mm of it on the side, the K2 should be protected against autocannons at combat ranges. Composite side armor on most MBTs is usually relegated to increased protection at a 60 degree arc, but for shots at those angles the LWS will probably get the turret facing the threat in between the laser and actual shot fired.

 

Pretty much every new MBT development has had the same idea that side turret composites tend to be a waste of weight and it's better to shave it off for strategic mobility or used that saved weight to mount better information/electronic warfare systems which are a much better defense on the modern battlefield. There is some trend that the people designing these tanks see that the general population can't, and this is probably the new route that AFV development is headed. Until recently a majority of people saw autoloaders as pieces of junk that broke down after every 2 shots and eviscerated crew members weekly, but Russia, France, and Japan still continued to field them. Fast forward to now and they seem like a requirement for most new MBTs going forward and everyone else is just playing catch up.

 

TLDR: The people designing these tanks for a living and have mountains of combat research data deemed it unnecessary, so it's probably unnecessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Scolopax said:

To confirm, this is still just intend to be an export vehicle, yes?

Yes this is just part of a cooperation program between the ROKA and the defense companies from South Korea. The bits of equipment being tested aren't intended to be adopted by the ROK.

 

 

(Machine Translated) 

"The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (Director Wang Jung-hong) announced on the 7th that the Army and three defense export companies have signed a military pilot operation agreement for export weapons systems and will start pilot operations this month.

 

The pilot operation system of the export weapons system is a defense export support system that the South Korean military provides operating performance after piloting the weapons system developed for export purposes for a certain period of time." (https://news.v.daum.net/v/20201007091528180)

 

5ONbqOK.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 soft-kill APS system (similar to that of the normal K2, you have the soft-kill radar and the rotatable smoke grenade launcher). You also have additional cage armor applied to the turret bustle. 

 

Hopefully more and better images pop up.

 

YmvHj0X.jpg

catrjp4.jpg

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

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 soft-kill APS system (similar to that of the normal K2, you have the soft-kill radar and the rotatable smoke grenade launcher). You also have additional cage armor applied to the turret bustle. 

 

Hopefully more and better images pop up.

 

YmvHj0X.jpg

catrjp4.jpg

that's one hella THICC BOI, with all that passive armor it must be goes beyond 60 ton

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

Driver has been relocated into the center of the chassis. I wonder where they put the ammo that is on the right currently.

 

This was done already for Altay and if I am not mistaken the ammo is on both sides of the driver in Altay.  

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...