Korea's new tank K-2 black panther

[RobWilliams]

The K-2 also uses the L55, one of many MBTs to chose a (licensed) Rheinmetall design, among them the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams. If the CLIP upgrades will be funded the Challenger 2 will also switch to Rheinmetall.

.

AFAIK the CR2 will not mount an L55 anytime soon as the amount of one piece ammunition they could store in the tank was 6, and they worked out that the financial incentives of smoothbore ammo were much less than a turret redesign. Also note the reason the project was brought in was for financial savings on ammunition, not a performance 'upgrade'.

IIRC the program was dropped a few years ago.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI462fyq0_c"]British Army Challenger 2 Tank - Why it is not using the Leopard 2 L55 Smoothbore - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[StrategyFTW]

Personally I'd rather stick to the M-1 Abrams, it is American made and has been proven to be the superior tank on the battlefield. No tank that has faced the Abrams have even been able to defeat it and also since we've been using it for so long we have perfected our tactics with it. The problem of using new tanks is that they aren't tested, they have never been out in the fight not all of their weaknesses have been resolved so that in my mind makes them second rate to the Abrams which is the best tank to ever see combat.

 

[Waylander]

Don't you think that your glorious post sounds rather silly? It would mean that the Abrams is not only completely superior to all it's contemporaries (which is debatable...) but will also be superior to everything the US fields in the feature...

And while the Abrams performed very well it faced T-72M1s with Iraqi crews and old ammo at the most. Any other modern tank with the same crews would have slaughtered them.

 

[M1Brams]

Korea has made significant attempts to expand their homegrown arms industry. The Black Panther is a good attempt to make a domestic tank (albeit with parts from leading tanks from around the world).

I see the tank as an upgraded M1 Abrams with pneumatic suspension. Their K1's were effectively lightened versions of the M1A1.

My concern is that the tank has not been battle tested. M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger and Merkava have all been proven in combat.

On paper, they should be more than a match for aging NK armor.

I believe the K-2 and its A1 variant are built, not to counter's NK tanks, including those in development, but ultimately to defend against the Type 99 tanks of China. Any future conflict with NK on paper might see the chinese jumping in on the side of the north surely as with the case of the ROK learning lessons from the Chinese voluntary forces pushing into Seoul during the Korean War.

 

[RobWilliams]

I believe the K-2 and its A1 variant are built, not to counter's NK tanks, including those in development, but ultimately to defend against the Type 99 tanks of China. Any future conflict with NK on paper might see the chinese jumping in on the side of the north surely as with the case of the ROK learning lessons from the Chinese voluntary forces pushing into Seoul during the Korean War.

I think thats the situation too, maybe not purely to help the North Koreans but another Korean War could see the US deploy in the theatre and i reckon that the Chinese would move into North Korea simply to prevent a US-friendly border being formed next to China.

They could have easily built a cheaper tank to counter NK armour if they wanted too, but there is a reason why they built such an expensive tank and that could be it. Not in the event of a South Korea push on China, but to prevent the opposite.

 

[M1Brams]

I think thats the situation too, maybe not purely to help the North Koreans but another Korean War could see the US deploy in the theatre and i reckon that the Chinese would move into North Korea simply to prevent a US-friendly border being formed next to China.

They could have easily built a cheaper tank to counter NK armour if they wanted too, but there is a reason why they built such an expensive tank and that could be it. Not in the event of a South Korea push on China, but to prevent the opposite.

True. But it still has to deal with numerically superior tanks such as the Pokpungho and mechanized formations of NK and China combined. The prohibitive cost of the K2 would mean less procurement as intended but i believe it, the K2 should hold its own until UN help should arrive. Which would probably be a very interesting battle in its own right, with both Koreas developing ingenious tanks which are going to see combat in its own right in the mountainous territories in the area for the first time together with the M1 Abrams
and the Leo 2 of the UN force should conflict arise.And if the chinese would to jump in, that would include the Type 99 and 98 too. It would be an eye watering side for all branches of the service, be it, air force, navy or army.

 

[Firn]

AFAIK the CR2 will not mount an L55 anytime soon as the amount of one piece ammunition they could store in the tank was 6, and they worked out that the financial incentives of smoothbore ammo were much less than a turret redesign. Also note the reason the project was brought in was for financial savings on ammunition, not a performance 'upgrade'.

IIRC the program was dropped a few years ago.

British Army Challenger 2 Tank - Why it is not using the Leopard 2 L55 Smoothbore - YouTube

Thank you, the bit about the problem of storing the de-facto NATO standard ammunition is certainly interesting. It will certainly be costly and problematic to adapt the CR2 to said standard.

Said that I wonder why this shouldn't be considered to be a performance upgrade, despite the arguments raised in the video. The 120 mm smoothbore Rheinmetall has not become the industry reference due to the relative recent explosion in costumer countries for the Leopard 2, but for the greatly increased anti-tank performance with kinetic penetrators over the 105 mm rifled L7. It is more suited to fire APFSDS then a rifled gun of the same calibre and despite the fact that HESH can not be used as effectively it has become, as written before the de-facto standard. This meant that far more ressources have been spent on researching and manufacturing ammunition of all sorts for the 120 mm smoothbore, increasing the performance and the lowering the cost relative to the available British120 mm rifled tank gun.

So while the potential disadvantages/advantages of the design of the gun itself are to a certain extent up to debate, the fact that the R&D and industry support of the smoothbore is currently much better is not. And as the quality ( + diversity, cost, etc) of the available ammunition determines to a great deal the performance it is not surprising that almost every new Western MBT uses a 120 mm smoothbore, be it an orginal Rheinmetall, a licenced one, or a different design like the GIAT chambered for the same ammo. In business this can be called a far more attractive ecosystem.

 

[Armoured Recce]

Hello,

I've just recvently joined this forum and am finding the discussions "interesting"...

I've witnessed some very "every thing American (M1 Abrahms) is the best" to "well, we'd just have to see"....

I personally have served in a NATO Country's (Canada) Armoured Corps, ( albiet in the Recce Troop...) ...I;ve been involved heavily in joint armour training with the US and the UK and have seen personally that the "technology" aspects of heavy vehicles, although important ARE NOT the key defining fetures. Within countless international "Tank Shoots", the Canadian tanks crews manning antiquated Leopard 1's have consistantly either outshot or very closely matched the "best" the extensive US armour forces ( Army and Marine) could supply...why...quality training....

The debate over "which is best" is simply "Tech" mumbo-jumbo.when it comes down to the job at hand...it's the crews ability to USE the technology effectively in a giver and specific situation...example...The Israeli Merkava series AFV's are the BEST for the Israeli forces and situation...would they perform as effectively in a Northern European situation?...likely not...they weren't designed for it....nor to really "fit" into any other nations armour tactics.they are Indigenous for THAT environment...the same will be found for the K2 in ROK service....

One really needs to look more at the tactical NEEDS of the vehicle as opposed to the "Stats on paper"....any Korean conflict will be VERY set piece .......there are limited avenues of approach and movement ( due to terrain limitations) and actual armour use will be predominately as rapid reaction forces to hit spearhead formations and rapid deployment into set/established defensive positions. The oportunity for open terrain "tank to tank " battle will be minute at best and severly effected by the heavy use of close air support.

The days of large formations of heavy armour clashing on open battle fields are done for the most part...heavy use of advanced intelligence gathering ( satilite etc) has reduced the probability of waves of "enemy" armour crashing through un detected....( see the decline in NATO emphasis on "vs. Russian" doctrine". In fact things have changed so drastically, that until the recent conflicts, many Nations, Canada included, had forcast the entire replacement of Heavy Armour with the LAV/Stryker type concept....experience with the LAVs in Afganistan and Iraq have shown limitations and "survivability" issues when confronted with the IED's found today....hence the Heavy Armour revitalization in NATO countries...not so much for "expected" armour vs. armour but for survivability in an IED rich environment and the shear "terror" effect of MBT's on combatants......

So, I guess after my huge ramble...the K2 is just fine for Korean needs....as are all other MBT's for their respective developer and user Nations.....compairing them statistically on paper is fine...BUt will never be the deciding factor in reality...

This is from years of personal experience operating armour in varying terrains and personal observation of fellow NATO armour being operated in joint operations...

Cheers