South Korea launches Amphibious Tank XK2

[Soner1980]

You are possibly right, because all postwar developments from Russian MBT factories are known that they were lighter armored than expected. If you have seen already, all Russian tanks are not heavier than 40 or 45 tons. Only the T-10 heavy tank derived from the JS-3 was 50 tons. Still it was destroyed by the then 105mm L7 rifled tank gun found in the British Centurions at long distances.

I also doubt the Al Khalid with it's 46 tons, why not 56 tons? And the T-64, yes it is nown that they used borium but in what kind of degree? Is it like the picture I send here before? Or like less processed material? Maybe the T-64 uses spaced armor where empty places will break the penetrating capability of the HEAT gas jet.

The T-64 series was known as the high tech MBT in Soviet hands and it has been pushed aside by the T-80. But I think that besides borium, also ceramics are used. Thats why it is called laminate armor and not composite armor. They say that the hull front is composite armor in the T-64, T-72 and T-80 series. But it is laminated I think. But the T-80 has also fiber glass in the front turret and hull (like on the swimming pool) to absorb kinetic energy.

But the picture I send here, 25mm composite armor plate weighs like aluminium but it gives the same protection like steel armor plate. I think this is some advancement made by Turkish defensive industries not to reduce weight on MBT's not?

 

[eckherl]

You are possibly right, because all postwar developments from Russian MBT factories are known that they were lighter armored than expected. If you have seen already, all Russian tanks are not heavier than 40 or 45 tons. Only the T-10 heavy tank derived from the JS-3 was 50 tons. Still it was destroyed by the then 105mm L7 rifled tank gun found in the British Centurions at long distances.

I also doubt the Al Khalid with it's 46 tons, why not 56 tons? And the T-64, yes it is nown that they used borium but in what kind of degree? Is it like the picture I send here before? Or like less processed material? Maybe the T-64 uses spaced armor where empty places will break the penetrating capability of the HEAT gas jet.

The T-64 series was known as the high tech MBT in Soviet hands and it has been pushed aside by the T-80. But I think that besides borium, also ceramics are used. Thats why it is called laminate armor and not composite armor. They say that the hull front is composite armor in the T-64, T-72 and T-80 series. But it is laminated I think. But the T-80 has also fiber glass in the front turret and hull (like on the swimming pool) to absorb kinetic energy.

But the picture I send here, 25mm composite armor plate weighs like aluminium but it gives the same protection like steel armor plate. I think this is some advancement made by Turkish defensive industries not to reduce weight on MBT's not?

Yes - ceramics have been around for quite awhile now and it is used on most modern MBTs as a portion of armor protection.

You bring up a good point in regards to the AL Khalid and lets add the Chinese Type 98/99, both are bigger in size than their Russian and Ukrainian counter parts and it should be feasable to add more armor protection to both platforms.

I wonder how well a Type 99 would stack up with the XK2 tank, I think some people and countries under estimate Chinese combat vehicle capabilities.

 

[Soner1980]

We all know that the latest version of the Type-99 is almost a match to the Abrams or maybe the same in warfare capabilities. But the survivability seems very dangerous because the lack of compartiments. Making jokes wit hmy brother, I tell him that the crew member can fix the engine inside the tank with a screw driver and spare parts. The engine newer needs to be lifted off because there are no compartiments.

When the engine has been hit, then fire can cause injusries to the personenel. In the Abrams, the magazine rack will blown up from the roof. Nice technique!

I also think that the K2 has also high degree of survivability. But most Asian MBT's must weigh more to uparmor them better. And also Russian tanks too.

 

[Chrom]

When that day happens that you can counter a KE projectile it will probable be the end of heavy armor.

Doubt it very much. Even now there are some multi-penetrator projectiles developed - i.e. in one shell there are up to 10 penetrators. Sure, each of these smaller penetrators are less effective than 1 big but still they cant be stopped by light armor.

 

[Chrom]

But most Asian MBT's must weigh more to uparmor them better. And also Russian tanks too.

This is long time debate. The main point here being what weight more = more available space for crew/gun/engine, NOT more armor. Russian tanks had just as much or more armor than counterporary western tanks. I.e. comparing T-64 vs M60, T64B/T-80B VS M1, T-80U vs M1A2... Even T-90 VS M1A2SEP.

 

[Soner1980]

No, the high tech can not be compared with both countries (US and USSR/Russia). It is known that in mechanics the Russian are ofter better, but also western designers are very good in mechanics, but the big plus is that western electronics are much much better. The Leopard-2A6, M1A2 and K-2 MBT's have the electro technics what it can be called the best, Russian computer technology is also good and accurate but a bit away from western nations.

 

[eckherl]

Doubt it very much. Even now there are some multi-penetrator projectiles developed - i.e. in one shell there are up to 10 penetrators. Sure, each of these smaller penetrators are less effective than 1 big but still they cant be stopped by light armor.

I was being sarcastic - you will see etc guns in place before this type of projectile for the purpose of defeating heavy armor.

 

[Chrom]

No, the high tech can not be compared with both countries (US and USSR/Russia). It is known that in mechanics the Russian are ofter better, but also western designers are very good in mechanics, but the big plus is that western electronics are much much better. The Leopard-2A6, M1A2 and K-2 MBT's have the electro technics what it can be called the best, Russian computer technology is also good and accurate but a bit away from western nations.

Now this is true. But electronic alone doesnt mean anything at all, only capabilities count. Now, the only area where USA tanks are ahead is thermals and (possibile) communication devices. FCS are believed to be about equal. On the other hand, if gun launched ATGM's and APS are not high-tech electronic in its pure stance - then i dont know what it is. Thats said, the difference between russian thermals and USA thermals are much smaller than many likes to think. Russia have access to West European technology in that area - and while USA is a bit ahead of Europe in that area, it is not that much ahead.

P.S. You mistake high-tech with pure electronic. High-tech is NOT only electronic. Everything is high-tech - armor alloys/composites. Tracks alloys. Engines. Cleaning systems for engines. Optics. Gun and certainly penetrators. ERA. etc. etc.

 

[Chrom]

Back to the topic... Is it me or there is indeed too much unprotected space between turret and hull?

 

[Soner1980]

Then the 25mm gun from lighter AFV's is enough in the field, not???

 

[Waylander]

Höh? Why do you think that?

@Chrom
I have to agree that it looks a little bit like there is space between the hull and the turret.
But this might also be because the turret overlaps the hull more than on other tanks.

 

[eckherl]

Back to the topic... Is it me or there is indeed too much unprotected space between turret and hull?

The turret ring on Russian tanks are more exposed that on western designed tanks, also it is a known fact that when a Russian tank takes a high velocity hit from a maingun round in the vicinity of the turret ring that they tend to crack even from a deflection shot.

The chances of a turret blowing off a M1 series or XK2 is slim due to the overhang being closer to the hull.

 

[eckherl]

Now this is true. But electronic alone doesnt mean anything at all, only capabilities count. Now, the only area where USA tanks are ahead is thermals and (possibile) communication devices. FCS are believed to be about equal. On the other hand, if gun launched ATGM's and APS are not high-tech electronic in its pure stance - then i dont know what it is. Thats said, the difference between russian thermals and USA thermals are much smaller than many likes to think. Russia have access to West European technology in that area - and while USA is a bit ahead of Europe in that area, it is not that much ahead.

P.S. You mistake high-tech with pure electronic. High-tech is NOT only electronic. Everything is high-tech - armor alloys/composites. Tracks alloys. Engines. Cleaning systems for engines. Optics. Gun and certainly penetrators. ERA. etc. etc.

No - the FCS on a T-90 series is not better or equal to a modern western tank, this doesn`t mean that Russia can`t do this but they are restricted to the design layout of their vehicles.

 

[Chrom]

No - the FCS on a T-90 series is not better or equal to a modern western tank, this doesn`t mean that Russia can`t do this but they are restricted to the design layout of their vehicles.

What you mean by "design layout"?

 

[eckherl]

What you mean by "design layout"?

They do not have enough room inside of their vehicles for all the newer electronic devices that are currently being fielded, Russia is pretty much showing this also with some of the proto type vehicles that they are fielding with bustle loading auto racks which takes care of three major issues:

1. Safety for crew and catastrophic vehicle loss.
2. More hull interior room for FCS power units/relay boxes.
3. Extend the potential of using 125mm ammunition with longer ammunition.

Stabilazation for vehicle is also limited due to the length of the barrel and size of turret, it is not always good to have a maingun barrel max out and hit the hull when the tank is in offensive operations.

 

[Chrom]

They do not have enough room inside of their vehicles for all the newer electronic devices that are currently being fielded, Russia is pretty much showing this also with some of the proto type vehicles that they are fielding with bustle loading auto racks which takes care of three major issues:

1. Safety for crew and catastrophic vehicle loss.
2. More hull interior room for FCS power units/relay boxes.
3. Extend the potential of using 125mm ammunition with longer ammunition.

All this have nothing to do with general design layout and vehicle size. Newer FCS dont take more space than older - in fact, i belive it takes less space and power. Safety can be greatly improved with modifications what are not related to vehicle size (T-95,etc). Some goes for modified autoloader. In fact, it is believed what last T-90 version already posses such autoloader and can assept longer shells. Moreover, out of all western tanks only M1xx are that much ahead in crew safety - as Leo2 and Challenger both have shells stored in the hull.

Stabilazation for vehicle is also limited due to the length of the barrel and size of turret, it is not always good to have a maingun barrel max out and hit the hull when the tank is in offensive operations.

Dont think it is major problem. Certainly, russian tanks are not much worse than western in that regard.

 

[Waylander]

Dont think it is major problem. Certainly, russian tanks are not much worse than western in that regard.

You think this is no problem?
Gun evaluation more than often hit the maximum on a Leo II during not that flat terrain. This seriously hampers the ability of a tank to fire on the move. Because of this I always state that arguments like "my tank can fire accurately while driving xx km/h" are rubbish. You have a really impressing first hit capability even with Leopard IIA4s at high speeds of more than 60 km/h if the terrain is just flat enough. You can also drive with less than 20 km/h and when the terrain is ugly you are going to have problems if the gun bumps.
And having less evaluation increases this problem by a big rate. This is one of the prices which the Ts have to pay for their small silouette, of which in my eyes the argument is overrated that it is harder to hit.

T-90: -4° till +14°
Leo II: -9° till +20°
Abrams: -10° till +20°
Challi II: -10° till +20°
K1: -10° till +20°


Do the math.
That's nearly 50% more evaluation for the western models.

 

[eckherl]

All this have nothing to do with general design layout and vehicle size. Newer FCS dont take more space than older - in fact, i belive it takes less space and power. Safety can be greatly improved with modifications what are not related to vehicle size (T-95,etc). Some goes for modified autoloader. In fact, it is believed what last T-90 version already posses such autoloader and can assept longer shells. Moreover, out of all western tanks only M1xx are that much ahead in crew safety - as Leo2 and Challenger both have shells stored in the hull.
Dont think it is major problem. Certainly, russian tanks are not much worse than western in that regard.

For the modifications done to the T-90 auto loader this has taken up even more room that Russia is not to content with, thus one of the reasons behind the bustle mounted loader for future tanks.

Is the T - 95 not a little longer than a T - 90, they have even gone to seven roadwheels to help comphensate for the new loading system.

With more interior room they can have alot of their counter measure power sources located inside of their vehicles versus outside, they can also up armor them alot better.

 

[Chrom]

For the modifications done to the T-90 auto loader this has taken up even more room that Russia is not to content with, thus one of the reasons behind the bustle mounted loader for future tanks.

I have nothing against bustle mounted loader on the future tanks, but T-90 example (and even bustle mounted future tanks) show, again, what current SIZE is not restriction for modified versions. Moreover, even for old T-72/T-80 tanks autoloaders started to limit penetrators size less than 10 years ago - no wonder, when 30-years old autoloader started showing age. It can be easely fixed.

Is the T - 95 not a little longer than a T - 90, they have even gone to seven roadwheels to help comphensate for the new loading system.

It indeed a very little longer, but also little lower. Moreover, looking at true modern porposals like unmanned turret we will see even smaller russian tanks.

With more interior room they can have alot of their counter measure power sources located inside of their vehicles versus outside, they can also up armor them alot better.

What "counter measure power sources" you speak? Are western tanks better in that regard?

 

[eckherl]

I have nothing against bustle mounted loader on the future tanks, but T-90 example (and even bustle mounted future tanks) show, again, what current SIZE is not restriction for modified versions. Moreover, even for old T-72/T-80 tanks autoloaders started to limit penetrators size less than 10 years ago - no wonder, when 30-years old autoloader started showing age. It can be easely fixed.
It indeed a very little longer, but also little lower. Moreover, looking at true modern porposals like unmanned turret we will see even smaller russian tanks.

What "counter measure power sources" you speak? Are western tanks better in that regard?

The room for the new auto loader located on the T-90`s does take up more room, they had to go to it due to penetrator size.

so far the west is just starting to get into the counter measures game for their armored vehicles, western tanks do have more interior room to place these power sources and power relay boxes.

It will be interesting to see if Russia does come out with their unmanned turret for their next generation tank, but they do have another proto type besides the Black Eagle that has a crew manned turret that can house a 135mm gun.