Jump to content

New Russian tank about entering service?


Recommended Posts

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.

So it is GLATGM? or something more similiar to STAFF? And it is allready avaiable for normal use, or still under development?

Definetly the advantage of this round is a fact that it is based on allready avaiable components from different type of ammunition, so it's reduce time, risk and costs in R&D phase compared to completely new ammunition like XM1111 MRM-CE... however MRM-CE offers longer range, very advanced targeting system and HEAT warhead, what KSTAM-II have? Something like EFP warhead?

HEAT have more potential that EFP, especially when it comes to attack tanks with composite or ERA on turret roof.

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.

Ok but think about the numbers, if turret will allways direct itself towards enemy that use laser range finder, or laser marker, then system can just go crazy. How many laser "shots" can be on the battlefield in a full scale war?

No to mention that such system can just make a mess with engaging targets, this might be a reason why NATO designers did not bothered with LWR on tanks and just ignored such device.

And remember that if a computer system reacts to laser "shot" and travers turret, it also exposes weak zone for another foe. It's not the best way to overcome this problem.

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

Even in open field such APS with limited number of interceptors might just not handle with a number of enemy munitions flying towards a tank.

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

Yeah I like the suspension idea. Even GDLS and US Army want to have such suspension for the next upgrade for M1 tanks, IRCC they choose one of suspension systems developed by L3 company.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So it is GLATGM? or something more similiar to STAFF? And it is allready avaiable for normal use, or still under development?

Definetly the advantage of this round is a fact that it is based on allready avaiable components from different type of ammunition, so it's reduce time, risk and costs in R&D phase compared to completely new ammunition like XM1111 MRM-CE... however MRM-CE offers longer range, very advanced targeting system and HEAT warhead, what KSTAM-II have? Something like EFP warhead?

HEAT have more potential that EFP, especially when it comes to attack tanks with composite or ERA on turret roof.

smart 155 is a 155mm artillery round deployed in 2000, which uses a fairly unique

top-attack mechanism.

KSTAM.jpg

similarly KSTAM utilizes EFP warheads in parachutes that fall down in a spiralling motion.

minimum range is stated to be 2km, and maximum 8km. so in effect the tank is turned into a short-range artillery piece.

more info on smart 155:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMArt_155

Ok but think about the numbers, if turret will allways direct itself towards enemy that use laser range finder, or laser marker, then system can just go crazy. How many laser "shots" can be on the battlefield in a full scale war?

No to mention that such system can just make a mess with engaging targets, this might be a reason why NATO designers did not bothered with LWR on tanks and just ignored such device.

if you are being lased from multiple directions at once, you probably should've retreated a long while ago to a better location.

Even in open field such APS with limited number of interceptors might just not handle with a number of enemy munitions flying towards a tank.

that's why the K2 PIP includes NERA blocks on the turret and hull sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites
if you are being lased from multiple directions at once, you probably should've retreated a long while ago to a better location.

Not always crew have such comfortable situation thatthey can retreat.

that's why the K2 PIP includes NERA blocks on the turret and hull sides.

I've only seen ERA (similiar to American one) presented by South Koreans on some graphics of K2 PIP. But if there will be NERA modules, I wonder how they will be placed on turret sides, if they will be instead of storage boxes, or on storage boxes creating rather big standoff from turret basic armor.

As for South Korean ammunition... it might be good against North Korean and Chinese tanks, but something with a good composite or reactive armor on roof will have higher survivability against EFP warheads. IMHO GLATGM with HEAT warhead and top attack mode is a better idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only seen ERA (similiar to American one) presented by South Koreans on some graphics of K2 PIP. But if there will be NERA modules, I wonder how they will be placed on turret sides, if they will be instead of storage boxes, or on storage boxes creating rather big standoff from turret basic armor.

something like this.

KoreaERA.jpg

As for South Korean ammunition... it might be good against North Korean and Chinese tanks, but something with a good composite or reactive armor on roof will have higher survivability against EFP warheads. IMHO GLATGM with HEAT warhead and top attack mode is a better idea.

well, the advantage of KSTAM is that it's fire and forget. you can sit behind a berm and pump rounds in the general direction of the target.

LAHAT has a major disadvantage compared to KSTAM, in that it's semi-active laser homing, so you'll need to "paint" the target with a laser during the whole flight of the round. you'd also have trouble designating a target under poor weather conditions like fog.

Link to post
Share on other sites
well, the advantage of KSTAM is that it's fire and forget. you can sit behind a berm and pump rounds in the general direction of the target.

LAHAT has a major disadvantage compared to KSTAM, in that it's semi-active laser homing, so you'll need to "paint" the target with a laser during the whole flight of the round. you'd also have trouble designating a target under poor weather conditions like fog.

Well, I don't know if LAHAT is comparable with KSTAM, I think that XM1111 MRM-CE is more comparable with it's autonomous IR seeker. However MRM is still not ready for production AFAIK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I don't know if LAHAT is comparable with KSTAM, I think that XM1111 MRM-CE is more comparable with it's autonomous IR seeker. However MRM is still not ready for production AFAIK.

yes, MRM-CE is more comparable, although it seems like it's more complex than KSTAM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pics of Russian (made in Belarus:) ) newest gunner's sight "Sosna-U" ("Pine-U"). Modernized t-72 and t-90 are equipped with this staff. Device includes thermal vision block (built under French license, Catherine FC or Catherine XP).

Most likely, new tank Armata would be equipped with the same sight.

56e83cbf136ba_Sosna-U1.jpg.05cd4c63ed798

56e83cbf15526_SosnaU-2.jpg.0bc1572d77488

56e83cbf136ba_Sosna-U1.jpg.05cd4c63ed798

56e83cbf15526_SosnaU-2.jpg.0bc1572d77488

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok but think about the numbers, if turret will allways direct itself towards enemy that use laser range finder, or laser marker, then system can just go crazy. How many laser "shots" can be on the battlefield in a full scale war?

Just FYI... Most lasers that are providing guidance are "coded", and these codes are coordinated by a higher headquarters. Projectiles aren't just going to guide on every laser source within its field of view. It is looking for a specific code.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fairly late to jump into this thread and admittedly didn't go through the whole thread but about the notion of thin turret side armor of XK2, is that based on observation of 3d diagram from post #9?

1. AFAIK the red slabs on the diagram are just for conceptualization and not to scale

2. see attached. It shows unknown HEAT impact that failed to pen. against stripped off XK2 side turret armor.

Granted, the HEAT round is only referred to as "capable of penetrating XXXmm of RHA" but 50-100mm of side armor, as estimated here in this forum, won't cut it even against ubiquitous RPG-7s.

in the end, devs know 60' arc protection for base side armor is insufficient anyway and are toying with NERA or ERA modules

I think protection "issues" or alleged flaws for XK2 stems from its overall shape.

I mean... the design looks very soviet-ish, with compromises here and there to meet required weight constraint while maintaining certain overall protection level.

It just looks deceivingly boxy and western-ish rather than spherical like T-XXs

(applies to K-1 variants too)

56e83cbf216b9_xk2turretsideheat.jpg.505f

56e83cbf216b9_xk2turretsideheat.jpg.505f

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Some new russian press-leaks:

image_50151409e1f8c.jpg

Seems that russians are switching to 57mm cannons for medium-weight AFVs(weapons for 45mm telescopic rounds are under development, but will not be available in "right" time, according to some reports)

GXe2O.jpg

-Something really interesting, identified as "Armata" MBT.

Edited by Jartsev
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's really interesting, indeed.

I'am curious, do they have something more than plastic models, since they promised to put Armata in service in 2015.

P.S. Did "Zvezda" make those models?:)

the russians are building a scale model army this time, since they can't afford real tanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the russians are building a scale model army this time, since they can't afford real tanks.
The fact is that they can afford it. The question is do they still can build it.

Noticed, that the turret of the "tank" doesn't seem to be unmanned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the russians are building a scale model army this time, since they can't afford real tanks.

Its not a big deal to design and procure new tank, but there is very big problem with political and military leadership in Russia(they constantly changing requirements and demands in very erratic way without any analytical evaluation).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not a big deal to design and procure new tank, but there is very big problem with political and military leadership in Russia(they constantly changing requirements and demands in very erratic way without any analytical evaluation).

Don't say that you particpate all the secret meetings of Russian Army and Government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
Protection levels of K2 might be comparable with NATO MBT's only on turret and hull front. Side protection of hull is also comparable but side protection of K2 is inferior to NATO best 3rd generation MBT's and several other designs.

This is probably a reason why K2 is lighter, turret with side turret protection made only from probably max 80mm thick RHA plates covered by storage boxes.

This is not very impressive and makes vehicle vurnable within safe manouvering angles.

If I had to choose between K2, NATO MBT's or Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) MBT's I would choose or M1A2SEP/Leopard 2A5/6/7 or T-90MS, maybe T-84M Oplot, but definetly not South Korean tank.

Also from what I know, K2 have only 14 rounds in it's autoloader cassettes, and this might be true when we compare size of it's turret bustle with other MBT's.

http://blog.naver.com/unmp/70170703185

Well, as mentioned during the National Assembly inspection, K2 Black Panther has 1.85 times better protection in front and 1.1 times better in side than K1. As K1 can withstand RPG-7 with its turret side armor.

Also additional ERAs can be attached on the turret side, and it can withstand not only RPGs but also HEAT round fired from XXXmm tank gun with the penetration of XXXmm.

K2's turret side protection is not as weak as you think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://blog.naver.com/unmp/70170703185

Well, as mentioned during the National Assembly inspection, K2 Black Panther has 1.85 times better protection in front and 1.1 times better in side than K1. As K1 can withstand RPG-7 with its turret side armor.

Also additional ERAs can be attached on the turret side, and it can withstand not only RPGs but also HEAT round fired from XXXmm tank gun with the penetration of XXXmm.

K2's turret side protection is not as weak as you think.

Damian90 was more evaluating the armor efficiency against KE rounds.

You can easily defeat CE rounds by increasing the amount of air/space/tools/whatever-you-want between the crew compartment's plate and the shield (being it a plate, a SLAT or a net).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...
As I said, thin side armor. Many tanks designed in Asia, if not all tanks designed there, are hybrids when it comes to composite armor placement and turret geometry.

They use Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) composite armor placement scheme, but with western turret geometry scheme.

This is their way to reduce weight of vehicle, but is not a good idea when it comes with vehicle protection.

Such turret geometry makes turret sides exposed within vehicles frontal arc (60 degrees, also known as safe manouvering angles). In Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) designs, thin turret side armor is angled such way, that it is fully covered by front armor and not visible for enemy with 60 degrees frontal arc. In NATO designs turret sides are protected (full lenght or only crew compartment) by thick composite armor, that at 30 degrees hit, is preaty thick.

So there is really no reason to be excited with Asian MBT's when discussion comes to their protection and comparing it to other designs.

K2 was designed to provide adequate protection from frontal arc of 45 degrees, instead of 60. During the development stage, some engineers doubted the need of thick turret side armor covering 45-60 degrees. After some research it showed that the probability of hit in those areas were quite low, so they decided to eliminate some armor to reduce the weight.

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...