Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Zadlo
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Beer said:

 

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

That´s one option. But if K2M is meant for SK service i would expect to see some ERA above the ammo racks as in the current model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Rumor Mill:

 

 

- Frontal Hull protection The same Publicly Stated to be. 614MM against KE 1513 Against HEAT

- Protection between the two...... Frontal Turret: K2 and Altay have the same Frontal Protection... According to hyundai Rotem the K2 Completely Stopped the A M829A2 (760MM pen at 2 KM) And Dm63 (780MM at 2km) at point blank with a Extra 150 MM untouched. Meaning 910 MM Front

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a fairly slow future ahead for the M48A3Ks. To keep it short, gradual replacement probably with K1E1s and with the some talk about more production runs of K2s with the goal of replacement of the more elderly tanks still in service with the ROK. If that is true it may come to pass sooner than later if everything goes according to the hopes of the ROK.

 

Recent article (in Korean) about the "South Korean military speeding up the fourth mass production of K2 tank and additional K21 armored vehicles." :https://www.bizhankook.com/bk/article/21600

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ammunition does the M48A3Ks currently use?

The main limitation of the M48 is probably it's 90mm, which is fine against most AFV, but will struggle against even vanilla T-55 and T-62 in service in NK.

 

I know that AML 90 and ERC 90 Sagaie have been engaged against T-54/55 in Israel and in Africa and sometimes defeated their armor, if barely.

So a 90mm can probably pack enough punch to defeat a T-55 or a T-62 frontally, especially using modern ammo.

But since 90mm were replaced fairly quickly by a 105 mm amongst most NATO members, I don't know how much efforts were made to develop relevant ammunition for the M48's 90mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alzoc said:

What ammunition does the M48A3Ks currently use?

The main limitation of the M48 is probably it's 90mm, which is fine against most AFV, but will struggle against even vanilla T-55 and T-62 in service in NK.

 

I know that AML 90 and ERC 90 Sagaie have been engaged against T-54/55 in Israel and in Africa and sometimes defeated their armor, if barely.

So a 90mm can probably pack enough punch to defeat a T-55 or a T-62 frontally, especially using modern ammo.

But since 90mm were replaced fairly quickly by a 105 mm amongst most NATO members, I don't know how much efforts were made to develop relevant ammunition for the M48's 90mm.

 

Poongsan produces the domestic K241 APFSDS in 90mm, as well as the licensed M431A2 HEAT and M71 HE (along with M353A2 training) - I assume these are the currently stocked rounds.

 

The old IHS Jane's ammo handbook quotes 152mm @ 60 degrees @ 1km for its performance. Take that with a grain of salt, although it is a tungsten rod.

 

Spoiler

dSdf9Lt.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cockerill themselves don't make ammunition, Mecar (now part of the Nexter group) does, but the Nexter ammunition catalog does not contain any 90mm for the M3 family. It does, however, contain many ammo types for various Cockerill 90mm guns, including the spicier ones, and presumably transplanting those projectiles (perhaps with driving and obturating band modifications) onto the correct case would not be a hassle.

Incidentally, the Nexter catalog lists penetration for the M690A1 APFSDS for the high pressure Cockerill 90mm mk 8 as a NATO single heavy (150mm at 60) at 2000m.

 

Regardless, I am led to believe the primary use of the M48s is coast defence, in which role they are used in concert with pedestal mounted guns taken from M47s (and still used with the original mantlets!) 

In that setting, the HE round is likely the most important, and any AP flavor will be able to adequately deal with amphibious vehicles.

 20130503134202.jpg

 

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • 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...