Jump to content
Skybird03

New Russian tank about entering service?

Recommended Posts

A radar-controlled tank-cannon that even can engage aircraft and helicopters, I would. An autoloader feeding the gun with 15 rounds per minute - around as fast as a well-trained human, I would, too. And let's wait what those missile-kill systems are about.

I assume further they have designed the tank according to the combat environment they expect to fight in if the North goes amok. And maybe they expect to be more bothered by ATGMs or AT-helicopters, than by flank shots by overaged Soviet and Chinese tanks.

What I mean by that? The Koreans have no freedom to mess up a project like this.

screw all that crap, the top-attack round is worth the price of admission alone.

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radar controlled gun have been around for some time now, nothing new here. As for the 10km range, well if you can ID a target at that range I think you would be 1 out of 100000,00 people that can. Shooting at great ranges is easy, ID the target and not killing your own forces is the trick. And so far no one has done it, there is a reason we engage at 2000m or less.

Don't think a nation would waste $ on weapon's, I think you need to rethink that statement, or better still, name a nation that has not!!

As for N Korea, well it's been on the "cold war could turn hot over a misunderstanding, or an accident" that's just a not so.

They have launched rockets,tested nukes, shot people, sunk SK ships, killed sailors, shelled SK and killed its people.

So just what does it have to do to "cold war could turn hot over a misunderstanding, or an accident".

Its all a show, we want more $ please, nothing new here. But I guess building million dollar tanks will keep everyone happy and safe at night (from what I don't know). And the arms industry is very happy at all of this.:cul:

If we were going to deal with NK we would. We haven't and will not, after all we have seen this behavior for 60 some years. I think if they were a problem we would have done something by now, nope I see this going on into the next 60 years. reality TV at it's best.:diable:

9 million = how many top attack ATGM's???????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shooting at great ranges is easy, ...

Yes. Service sabot (i.e. "war shot") safety trace for 105mm L7 was 21,000m (not sure how much KE the sabot would have at 20,900m though).

As you can imagine, 120mm is a bit longer than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Radar controlled gun have been around for some time now, nothing new here.

Name one MBT prodcued in serial production. Not just a Gepard Flak Panzer. An MBT with a 120mm or heavier. ;)

As for the 10km range, well if you can ID a target at that range I think you would be 1 out of 100000,00 people that can. Shooting at great ranges is easy, ID the target and not killing your own forces is the trick.

I think if it is North of the DZ, then on the first days you can safely assume it is neither a Southern or American tank. The trick is beyond which line ther eis no troops of yours.And if then you can launch shots at gfreater range, that is an advantage, no doubt. Apache Hellfires for example reach out 6 and 8 km max, even without having optical ID, but only radar contact.

And so far no one has done it, there is a reason we engage at 2000m or less.

Sounds a bit like "if we cannot do it, then nobody else can." Well. Underestimating the other is something that never gets old, does it.

As for N Korea, well it's been on the "cold war could turn hot over a misunderstanding, or an accident" that's just a not so.

They have launched rockets,tested nukes, shot people, sunk SK ships, killed sailors, shelled SK and killed its people.

The correct quote you gave must be:

"cold war could turn hot over a misunderstanding, or an accident - or by intention" ;)

9 million = how many top attack ATGM's???????

Do you take aim by that line only at the K2, or also at the Chally-2, M1, and Leo-2 in principal? And wasn'T the complaint not about especially the claimed weak flank armour of the K2, not the vulnerable roof that it shares with every Western tank, too?

Of course their military complex wants toys, and their military industry wants money. But if yzu are waiting for war breaking out every day, you have less room to fool around, and I assume that checks and tests thus get run more careful thasn in a peace-drunken nation where there is no imminent survival pressure and there is plenty of oppoirtunity to turn into a big fat and lazy cat. South Korea is neither India nor China, technologically. Their high tech capabilites in industry are en par, if not in parts superior, to western industry nations. In some branches they have set new standards. Their tech products on global competition level rival the best from Europe and the US.

That are, alltogether, some reasons too many, for my taste, as if I would want to underestimate their capabilities only because it is not us having or building new stuff that sounds new.

I am no expert and thus do not wish to dive deeper into engineering. I just use some healthy reason from a general perspective, because the replies to the K2 from beginnig on sounded bit haugty and like "we did not build it, so it cannot be any good". Underestimating the other that easily, even when there are indications and reasons to see this other one to be on same eye level with oneself in general, simply sounds not clever to me.

It sounds like "they cannot pull heavy artillery up the mountain in this kind of bad weather." Well. French history gave an answer to that enlightened assessment, and it was not nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A radar-controlled tank-cannon that even can engage aircraft and helicopters, I would. An autoloader feeding the gun with 15 rounds per minute - around as fast as a well-trained human, I would, too. And let's wait what those missile-kill systems are about.

I assume further they have designed the tank according to the combat environment they expect to fight in if the North goes amok. And maybe they expect to be more bothered by ATGMs or AT-helicopters, than by flank shots by overaged Soviet and Chinese tanks.

South-Korea is an extremely capable high tech nation, and this tank costs much more than the Abrams or the Leclerce, the price counts from 9 million per unit upwards. I don't think they would waste so much money on a tank that is not justifying these costs somehow, even more so with North Korea stepdancing on their nosetip every couple of weeks. Right the opposite I think, I think they have built right the thing that they wanted to have. And different to us Germans with our Leopards, they have a clear and present threat right in front of them. With a very realistic chance that the cold war could turn hot over a misunderstanding, or an accident - or by intention. If Germany maybe has overestimated for example the Puma project''s capability, maybe, this would not immediately threaten our vital security interests. But if South Korea is not prepared to go to war with its Northern neighbour any time, this could easily decide its fate.

What I mean by that? The Koreans have no freedom to mess up a project like this.

South Korean has always been ready for an attack from North Korea. The question is would it really happen with both of them knowing how it would end up like in the end. It doesnt matter if the South gets a new MBT or not, yeah its a plus, but I could only guess that if the war did happen the arty and other things would have the most effect within the first 24 hours maybe 36. With that being said I could guess that most of the Korea pensula would be hit and thousands of ppl would be killed. North Korea has been doing this crap for years even when I was there in 2002 at Camp Garry Owen. Dont know how many times we were called on alerts and other warnings thinking they are coming. It was also nice knowing that we were just a trip wire in the way if it did happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn'T rule out that K2 so easily. It currently is the most expensive tank in the world, says Guiness book,

Being overexpensive and not more survivable than adversaris or analogs, don't make You better.

and has some unique features, amongst them a cannon controlled by - radar , allowing engagement of units while on the move, tracking distances to close to 10 km, and engaging helicopters and aircraft.

Other tanks can do the same without radar, if there is really radar connected with K2's FCS in the first place...

IMHO autotracker is more usefull and passive, what means it can't be detected, radar can be so You can't use it if You want to hide (ambush as an example).

Turkey has evaluated the K2 versus the French and German MBTs, and the Koreans won a contract that allows Turkey to build modified K2 in license.

It is completely false argument.

Turkey just bought Know How and technology transfer from South Korea, the overall design of Altay tank is a mixup of M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 design solutions. I do not see there anything close to K2 design.

The Koreans also field smart top-attack ammunition, and kinetic rounds described on the web as being top notch class for Tungsten rounds.

Nothing smart (and new) in that top-attack ammunition, it will be just most probably GLATGM, similiar to LAHAT or MRM-CE.

The frontal armour, reports Wikipedia, has proven to defeat modern 120mm SABOT fired from the L55. The tank has what they call a soft kill anti-missile system, and is expected to get a hard-kill anti missiles system within the next five years, they write. The tank also has radar and laser warning receivers.

Do You know that not only pure frontal armor is responsible for protection within vehicle frontal arc? Also side armor is responsible for protection within that frontal arc.

This is why Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) tanks have such specific turret geometry, to hide weak turret side armor within vehicles frontal arc, and NATO tanks have very thick side turret armor to make it more survivable (it have also positive side effect, for being more universal and usefull for urban warfare).

Active Protection Systems are nothing new, in fact every tank can have installed APS and warning receivers, it is only a question of each armed forces needs and how much they will to spend on such vehicles subsystems.

There seem to be quite some innovations.

Not even a single innovation. South Koreans were just willing to spend enough money on R&D for all these gizmos.

I suspect that it might be very negative for them if they will not be able to export K2, it's price might skyrocket... same situation with Japanese Type 10.

It is rather funny, South Koreans and Japanese designed tanks that are overloaded with electronics, thus overexpensive, bought in small numbers (that increase their price) and do not offer higher survivability than cheaper analogs designed by NATO, Russia or Ukraine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jesus, get off the damn hatorade already. K2 seems like a decent tank, and can most likely go toe-to-toe with the M1A2 SEPV2, and provide a very fierce fight.

S-Korea will build about 400 K2's, which will be a nice supplement to their ~1500 K1's.

britain built about 400 challengers, and france 400 leclercs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can most likely go toe-to-toe with the M1A2 SEPV2, and provide a very fierce fight

I disagree and will leave it at that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Name one MBT prodcued in serial production. Not just a Gepard Flak Panzer. An MBT with a 120mm or heavier. ;)

Most ships have radar FCS, is it all that hard to place on a tracked chassie, why, because there are proven systems that are better.

I think if it is North of the DZ, then on the first days you can safely assume it is neither a Southern or American tank

Thats great, as long as they stay there, but what happens when they move south and into the mix with the US and SK tanks and veh's?

If they only stay in the DMZ then there is no need for a tank with radar or any other FCS is there.

. The trick is beyond which line ther eis no troops of yours.And if then you can launch shots at gfreater range, that is an advantage, no doubt. Apache Hellfires for example reach out 6 and 8 km max, even without having optical ID, but only radar contact.

Yes and they have had blue on blue (ask any UK ) as we all know, but will a 9 million tank eliminate this ???

Sounds a bit like "if we cannot do it, then nobody else can."

NO, it's more like , lets see how this tank develops in combat and not in the media hype for the time being.

Well. Underestimating the other is something that never gets old, does it.

Overstating a fear is counterproductive in so many ways, except for the defense industry and spreading fear into the civil population is better, for who??The defense industry, big banks, come on 9 million!!!

They have a lot of US hardware there all ready, just how much more is required? they are fighting T-55/T62's type MBT's:confused:

The correct quote you gave must be:

"cold war could turn hot over a misunderstanding, or an accident - or by intention" ;)

Do you take aim by that line only at the K2, or also at the Chally-2, M1, and Leo-2 in principal? And wasn'T the complaint not about especially the claimed weak flank armour of the K2, not the vulnerable roof that it shares with every Western tank, too?

The above MBT's have a track record in combat, not media hype. As soon as this changes the discussion can take on the FACTS, and not the defence industry hype.

Of course their military complex wants toys, and their military industry wants money. But if yzu are waiting for war breaking out every day, you have less room to fool around, and I assume that checks and tests thus get run more careful thasn in a peace-drunken nation where there is no imminent survival pressure and there is plenty of oppoirtunity to turn into a big fat and lazy cat. South Korea is neither India nor China, technologically. Their high tech capabilites in industry are en par, if not in parts superior, to western industry nations.

If this were true we would be seeing a lot of K1, and K2 being sold around the world, we do not. What we see is Leo2's, M1's and russian tanks. In some branches they have set new standards. Their tech products on global competition level rival the best from Europe and the US.

Please provide a link to their MBT's being sold to a nation.After all its the tank that we are being told they have the lead and surpassing the west in.

That are, alltogether, some reasons too many, for my taste, as if I would want to underestimate their capabilities only because it is not us having or building new stuff that sounds new.

I am no expert and thus do not wish to dive deeper into engineering. I just use some healthy reason from a general perspective, because the replies to the K2 from beginnig on sounded bit haugty and like "we did not build it, so it cannot be any good". Underestimating the other that easily, even when there are indications and reasons to see this other one to be on same eye level with oneself in general, simply sounds not clever to me.

No, your being defensive, what we are saying is that we have seen no data or combat to substantiate their claims, sure it sounds great, how ever you can't take that into combat now can we.

It sounds like "they cannot pull heavy artillery up the mountain in this kind of bad weather." Well. French history gave an answer to that enlightened assessment, and it was not nice.

Or better yet-Leopard1A5 operating in Afstgan_ no media hype, just pure and recorded facts.

Slick vids and big sales junkets from the builder do not make a good tank, but you know this.

The bottom line is any nation can build a tank in some form or another. Some can do a excellent job due to their teck industry. What we see in history is the nations who build war winners have a long history in finding out through combat (sadly) what works best. Now I'm not saying that a nation that just starts building MBT's cant achieve the same level or better, it's just that this has to be seen first to give the the credit they would deserve. If SK has a winner, great, if radar on a MBT works better that the system employed on the MerkIV (the latest and most advanced in the world) great.

However my mind keeps going back to that Hyundai car a few house down from me, and I wounder is it possible?. But then again I supposes it may, all hell I'll just wait a see if this pans out, I've been fooled before ya know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jesus, get off the damn hatorade already. K2 seems like a decent tank, and can most likely go toe-to-toe with the M1A2 SEPV2, and provide a very fierce fight.

S-Korea will build about 400 K2's, which will be a nice supplement to their ~1500 K1's.

britain built about 400 challengers, and france 400 leclercs.

Nothing anyone says will convince the Russ-ophiles of the world of anything. They fall in love with every line drawing that comes down the pike and are instantly convinced that this one will surely be the best tank in the world (if only it would ever actually get put into production...). Any other vehicle mentioned that isn't a refurbished T-72 must be smeared. It gets old after a while.

Any vehicle that begins development 10 or 20 years after its competitor had better have some sort of innovation when compared to the older vehicle, shouldn't it? Given the choice I would fight in a western built tank. But what soldier is given the choice of the MBT he takes to a battle?

Having been stationed in the Republic of Korea for 3 years I say that few countries take their defense as seriously as the ROKs and the excuse that "they don't have to worry, the North Koreans pose no serious threat", and "they wouldn't invade South Korea anyway", doesn't seem to matter to them a bit. Ive seen there K-1s and what I call K-1A1s and they are good tanks. Having worked with the ROK Army doesn't make me an expert on the defense of the peninsula or the equipment used. It just helps form my opinion. so I have no reason not to believe the K-2 isn't about what it is advertised to be. I'm not convinced that the protection is equal to an M-1A2 but who cares? I'm sure its pretty good. No one here knows anything more than the rest of us do about these things. Its all just internet sword fighting.

Mog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not convinced that the protection is equal to an M-1A2 but who cares? I'm sure its pretty good. No one here knows anything more than the rest of us do about these things. Its all just internet sword fighting.

Mog

well, the K1 was fitted with Chobham armour, so i think it's fair to assume the K2 has got at least something similar, or better, given that it's 30 years since the K1 entered service..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Other tanks can do the same without radar, if there is really radar connected with K2's FCS in the first place...

Engaging tanks at ten kilometers?

Name one, please.

Mind you,it's not just about blindly firing into the general direction, but also with a decent chance to actually hit something.

IMHO autotracker is more usefull and passive, what means it can't be detected, radar can be so You can't use it if You want to hide (ambush as an example).

You stipulate

  1. that the K2 doesn't have an autotracker (it could very well be that it has one, that it's just not publicly mentioned)
  2. that every enemy target has a radar warner (please name which North Korean tanks and IFVs do)
  3. that you want to spring an ambush at 10km range
  4. that the crews can't switch off the radar

I don't know if I could find more implicit arguments that fly into the face of common sense and plausibility if I kept thinking a bit longer. But I'll just leave it there.

Nothing smart (and new) in that top-attack ammunition, it will be just most probably GLATGM, similiar to LAHAT or MRM-CE.
  1. Name two other nations aside from Israel and Korea that hava already fielded actual top attack munitions
  2. Even if the concept of top attack munitions isn't new, which North Korean defense technology has it rendered obsolete already?

So, what's the point that you are trying to make here?

Do You know that not only pure frontal armor is responsible for protection within vehicle frontal arc?

I think it's safe to assume that most readers of this forum have experienced so many virtual deaths in their armored vehicles that they are very well aware of what armor can do for you, where it can fail, and what the consequences are. SB Pro may not be analytically correct, but I guess the damage model still gets the point across.

This is why Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) tanks have such specific turret geometry, to hide weak turret side armor within vehicles frontal arc

I am the last here to bash Russian technology, but that special turret geometry hasn't really solved the much more relevant issue of post-penetration survivability. There's a lot more to survivability than turret geometry - although, admittedly, better side protection can be an advantage. It is a folly however to trash an entire system based on a single factor.

Looking that the mountainous terrain I wonder how much freedom of maneuver a North Korean invader would have to outflank eventual defenders to shoot them from their weak angles. If you are confined to the profile of a valley, thay may turn out to be not quite so easy.

Active Protection Systems are nothing new, in fact every tank can have installed APS and warning receivers

You are quite right - every tank could have one - but how many actually do? Even more importantly, what can North Korea do to defeat it?

As one can see

, the APS is only one aspect of many to help increase the overall survivability.
Not even a single innovation. South Koreans were just willing to spend enough money on R&D for all these gizmos.

So, which other tank in the world does have a comparable feature set?

Imaginary tanks don't count. Just those that are available in the same time frame as the K-2, or earlier. Even if there was one, for Korea the much more important question is what the North can do to handle this new MBT, aside from the usual (air attacks, large IEDs, or that lucky shot now and then).

It is rather funny, South Koreans and Japanese designed tanks that are overloaded with electronics, thus overexpensive, bought in small numbers (that increase their price) and do not offer higher survivability than cheaper analogs designed by NATO, Russia or Ukraine.

What I find funny is that your line of argumentation appears as an almost direct déja-vu of how Soviet military planners discarded a lot of the innovations in the M1 and Leo 2 as irrelevant in their time as well:

  • "Thermal imagers?
    Useless!"
  • "Separating ammo and crew?
    Can't work!"
  • "Composite armor?
    Can't be better than ours!"

Yet, even though the Russian and Ukrainian tanks are so much cheaper (and seemingly just as capable), it's not as if the world has formed a line at the doors of Rosoboron Export, falling all over themselves to buy them.

I wonder why?

But the export successes of Russia (or the lack thereof) aren't the issue. The question is whether - from what we know - the K-2 is a capable system. To me it doesn't appear toothless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder where I said that K2 is a bad tank, so it ended with such outrageous reaction. ;)

I said that K2 is not something better, that's all.

Engaging tanks at ten kilometers?

Name one, please.

Mind you,it's not just about blindly firing into the general direction, but also with a decent chance to actually hit something.

I didn't had in mind distance, but ok then, K2 is still in development phase (Koreans have problems with powerpack), as is it's long range ammunition, so I think it is fair to compare it with M1A2SEP armd with MRM-CE, is it?

You stipulate

that the K2 doesn't have an autotracker (it could very well be that it has one, that it's just not publicly mentioned)

that every enemy target has a radar warner (please name which North Korean tanks and IFVs do)

that you want to spring an ambush at 10km range

that the crews can't switch off the radar

I don't know if I could find more implicit arguments that fly into the face of common sense and plausibility if I kept thinking a bit longer. But I'll just leave it there.

First mistake is assuming that enemy AFV's need radar warning system, I would rather say, that if enemy is clever, he will have some specialized vehicles with radar warning recivers and with radio or other connection to artillery.

If You switch off radar then, You can't use it obviously, and there is something else, terrain, can such radar detect targets (and identify them!) behind a mountain?

Name two other nations aside from Israel and Korea that hava already fielded actual top attack munitions

Even if the concept of top attack munitions isn't new, which North Korean defense technology has it rendered obsolete already?

So, what's the point that you are trying to make here?

1) Did South Korea really fielded that new ammunition for it's tank?

2) The point is, that the idea is not something new, so claiming that this is some sort of innovation isn't true.

Just give good reason to other and they will design their own analogs (of course depending on their R&D funds etc.)

I think it's safe to assume that most readers of this forum have experienced so many virtual deaths in their armored vehicles that they are very well aware of what armor can do for you, where it can fail, and what the consequences are. SB Pro may not be analytically correct, but I guess the damage model still gets the point across.

I didn't had in mind front armor protection values in mind, but a fact that within vehicles frontal arc, protection is provided by both, front and side armor, and this is a real problem.

If You can't do much with hull side armor (maybe some side skirts replaced by something better), turret have more options, or a geometry tricks to have smaller, lighter turret, or just more massive side armor with a cost of larger and heavier turret.

I am the last here to bash Russian technology, but that special turret geometry hasn't really solved the much more relevant issue of post-penetration survivability. There's a lot more to survivability than turret geometry - although, admittedly, better side protection can be an advantage. It is a folly however to trash an entire system based on a single factor.

Looking that the mountainous terrain I wonder how much freedom of maneuver a North Korean invader would have to outflank eventual defenders to shoot them from their weak angles. If you are confined to the profile of a valley, thay may turn out to be not quite so easy.

In case of vehicle frontal arc enemy does not need really to manouver that much to the vehicle flank. Even slight exposition of turret side armor might be fatal in case of K2 due to it's thin armor (even for older, less capable ammunition that enemy have).

You are quite right - every tank could have one - but how many actually do? Even more importantly, what can North Korea do to defeat it?

As far as I observed, APS launchers in Korean tank have limited number of interceptor projectiles. Massive fire at one tank might be a good idea to overcome that problem for the enemy... if it can be done.

So, which other tank in the world does have a comparable feature set?

Imaginary tanks don't count. Just those that are available in the same time frame as the K-2, or earlier. Even if there was one, for Korea the much more important question is what the North can do to handle this new MBT, aside from the usual (air attacks, large IEDs, or that lucky shot now and then).

The question is not what tank have such features, but what tank of what countries can be fitted with such features in what time and with what cost, and that really all features are needed.

What I find funny is that your line of argumentation appears as an almost direct déja-vu of how Soviet military planners discarded a lot of the innovations in the M1 and Leo 2 as irrelevant in their time as well:

"Thermal imagers?

Useless!"

"Separating ammo and crew?

Can't work!"

"Composite armor?

Can't be better than ours!"

Yet, even though the Russian and Ukrainian tanks are so much cheaper (and seemingly just as capable), it's not as if the world has formed a line at the doors of Rosoboron Export, falling all over themselves to buy them.

I wonder why?

But the export successes of Russia (or the lack thereof) aren't the issue. The question is whether - from what we know - the K-2 is a capable system. To me it doesn't appear toothless.

And I agree with You in this points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That they maybe can find targets at 10 km (if terrain allows) must not mean they want to shoot at them at that range, just staying outside the enemy's engagement range is good enough in itself when firing, and early intel allows you tactical adaptation early on, shifting your positions for example. Explosive ammo against soft targets also would not need total precision like a kinetic round that does nothing when strying off too much (think of artillery...). I imagine also what a radar-based FCR would do in combination with a cannon-launched mini-ATGM like the Russians use.

However, originally I just wanted to say by linking the orginal article that by the feature list this looks like an interesting tank. And that it looks - well... as I said earlier, it looks struppy. :) That's the best dress for an MBT, I think: looking struppy.

Some illustrations of some of the tank's feature. Somewhere it was published that it also uses a new type of suspension, if it is new and has advantages, that would count as an innovation, too.

http://www.myvideo.de/watch/7862977/Suedkoreanische_K2_Black_Panther_Kampfpanzer

By one snippet close to the end, one can see the inside a bit. Looks light and clean, and well-sorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit I have never heard this word: "struppy."

A Google search suggested I was looking for "stroppy" instead, which it defined as:

Definition for stroppy:

Web definitions:

bolshy: obstreperous.

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Gee...uh...thanks Google...I think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I can do some really weired things with this language when I am drunk enough... Wait 'til I do it in French!

Freudian mistake of mine. What I meant was indeed "stroppy" for "übellaunig, pampig," - "Struppi" is the German name of the one dog in a Walt Disney movie, German title "Tim und Struppi"...

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Did South Korea really field that new ammunition for it's tank?

Just give good reason to other and they will design their own analogs (of course depending on their R&D funds etc.)

the top-attack round is called KSTAM-II and is co-developed with germany.

the round is based on Diehl's Smart 155 top-attack round.

it's been specifically developed to be fielded with the K2.

but the advantage of a top-attack round shouldn't be underestimated. if you've toyed with the bradley's TOW-2B you'll know how deadly it can be in SB.

with a tank rounds curved trajectory, you can potentially fire it from cover at an enemy in cover.

In case of vehicle frontal arc enemy does not need really to manouver that much to the vehicle flank. Even slight exposition of turret side armor might be fatal in case of K2 due to it's thin armor (even for older, less capable ammunition that enemy have).

well, that's true, the side armour is only about 80-100mm, which means the protective side angle is only about 10 degrees.

but who is going to risk aiming for that thin strip of side armour at 2km or more? you'll risk missing the tank entirely due to the dispersion.

besides, with an LWR, the turret will traverse towards the direction it's lased from, reducing the exposure of the turret flanks.

As far as I observed, APS launchers in Korean tank have limited number of interceptor projectiles. Massive fire at one tank might be a good idea to overcome that problem for the enemy... if it can be done.

this would only happend if a platoon of K2's blunder into an ambush where it can be flanked.

some features of the K2 that hasn't been mentioned, is it's L55 gun, and fully adjustable hydropneumatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there's no substance to your argument..

And doesnt have to be. Have a nice day

If there was a chance for this to happen which we know will not, I believe the M1A2 SEP V2 would still have the upper hand on the k2 due to these which Damian90 mentioned, the XM1111 which it could hit a target up to 12.06 km unlike the KSTAM-II which is only hitting at 8 km. But we will never see this. Just another what if and comparing tanks to documents which one tank is the best tank. Myself I believe the MBT that have seen combat and proved itself is the one on top. Until the K2's faces North Korea tanks and destroyed them like the Abrams destroyed Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm and other wars. The abrams is still top on my lists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSTAM

http://www.deagel.com/Projectiles/XM1111-Mid-Range-Munition_a001136001.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And doesnt have to be. Have a nice day

if you've got nothing to add to a discussion, then it's better to shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you've got nothing to add to a discussion, then it's better to shut up.

how about NO!!! This was said from you after I just stated that I think the K2 doesnt have a chance against the M1A2 SEP. there's no substance to your argument.. From my understanding we can write whatever we want as long as it does not break the rules for the forms. So dont tell me to Shut up and I will not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you've got nothing to add to a discussion, then it's better to shut up.

Can you see the irony in this?

Share this post


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.


×
×
  • Create New...