When we helped them design it and that we did, they did not get a M1 armor package thus some of the reasons for the weight difference.
New turkish tank !!???
- Thread starter deathomen
- Start date
I didn't talk about M48s but M60s.
And I can tell you that it is pretty normal that the pipes in a tank are worn out after a long time in the depot. If one buys these tanks without maintenance it is no surprise that they need to get alot of maintenance ours before they are back in shape.
And let's not forget that everybody who buys Leopard IIA4s is getting a fine tank which is still a viable opponent on the field comparable to M1A1s for an incredible low price.
And spare parts are not an argument. The Leopard II is not especially expensive when it comes to spare parts. And spare parts need to be procured for every MBT one buys.
Well, the original K1 was designed not by Korea but by General Dynamics. At the moment-1970s-, Korea wanted to have M60s but US refused it. Then Korea turned to produce licenced Leopard I. When the contract was almost made, US interrupted it. US understood the Korean army's desire for the new tank and then agreed to help making a new one. If US had not supported it then Germany would have made a benefit. So Korea decided ROC and Chrysler Defence (later GD Land System) designed it. The first prototypes were made in 1983.
Though it was not a copy of the M1, it can be told as a brother of M1, strongly influenced by some of the prototype M1 designs of GD. Even exporting K1 was banned because spoiling the US technology was worried. That's why ROK Army says K2 is their first indegenious tank though there were upgradings for armour and FCS and developing an almost new tank K1A1.
PS Eckherl, I thought you may ride both of the K1 and K1A1. Is there any big difference between them except the guns. I rode in K1 once but not in K1A1. So just curious.
Yes I have been in both tanks, the biggest difference is the maingun mantlet and the switch over from the K1 style Panoramic sight (Leo2 style) to the Samsung/Thales system, I cannot get into the armor specifics because it is classified information. Also back in 1989 we did offer South Korea our M60A3s that we were swapping out for M1s in 1990 in South Korea, but they did not want them.
Might be, but still the hatch would be more or less directly above the breech mechanism, or if they go for an autoloader, above the autoloader mechanism. I understand that this is just a very early concept scheme and I'm sure the Turks will make an awesome tank, but shouldn't they have briefed their 3D artist a bit better about tank interiors?
Off topic:
That reminds me of the "Warhammer 40k" tank, packing a gigantic maingun into a tiny one-man turret. But whereas 40k is just a silly game, this tank is supposed to be reality in some years.
Off topic:
That reminds me of the "Warhammer 40k" tank, packing a gigantic maingun into a tiny one-man turret. But whereas 40k is just a silly game, this tank is supposed to be reality in some years.
I agree with you there, looking at the hatch configurations made me think to myself that someone needs to get fired.
nfloorl:DefConGuru
New Member
I will agree that tank looks like it's daddy was an APC and it's mommy came from warhammer. By the way, it's not even past the concept stage yet? And they paid how much so far? I'm starting to think whoever is in charge of tanks in Turkey, well...
Chuckle. The Germans didn't get an M1 (DU) armor package either yet managed to come up with a tank just as heavy as the M1....
WHat do you want to say?
The US got their first armor designs from the UK and redesigned it for the M1. Later they added the DU parts.
Germany went it's own way with armor right from the start.
Not easy to compare, though...
And a Leopard IIA4 doesn't need to hide because a M1A1 enters the zone.
The US got their first armor designs from the UK and redesigned it for the M1. Later they added the DU parts.
Germany went it's own way with armor right from the start.
Not easy to compare, though...
And a Leopard IIA4 doesn't need to hide because a M1A1 enters the zone.
Who said anything about DU armor *upgrade*, K1 design is not based on a mid M1A1 series tank but instead a early series M1 tank.
You may want to look at the weight numbers of a M1A1 heavy compared to a LEO2A4 if you want to discuss DU.
Last edited:
It will be interesting to see how much Korean influence there will be in the overall look of the tank. With the technologies deal signed they are now at the initial stages of getting something built and tested.
78 months has been devoted to research and development, plus the concept picture was drawn just to promote the project..
"Korea will transfer technologies for tank engines, transmissions, automatic gun loading devices, gun barrels and gun shells -- technologies which Hyundai Rotem and the Agency for Defense Development (ADD) have accumulated by developing K-1, K-1A1, and XK-2 tanks over the past three decades."
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200807/200807300014.html
Last edited:
Looks like this is going to be one awesome tank once it goes into production. Probably going to look like the K2 because of all its taking from it. Good to see a tank that can stand toe to toe with any other tank in the world. I mean the Leopard 2A4s and M60Ts were pretty good tanks but this looks to be a lot more promising.
this concept is to huge is there any more concepts
You may want to look up weight of the XM-1 prototype (some 52600 kg according to Foss, et.al., Panzer und andere Kampffahrzeuge von 1916 bis heute. Buch und Zerit Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Koln, 1978 / originally Salamander Books LtD 1977). Early M1/IPM1 are put at '60 tons' e.g. here.
However, as with the 67-68 tons for M1A2 or 63 tons for A1 and 65,5 tons for A2, these are short tons, which are 0,91 metric tons, with which the Americans have mostly replace the British long tons . So, thats 54,400 kilograms for early M1/IPM1, 57,100 for M1A1 and 61,500 - 63,000kg for M1A2. By comparison, K1 is 51,100kg and K1A1 54,500 kg, see e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K1A1
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/k1-specs.htm
That means a weight difference of 1500-3300 kg between early M1 and early K1. Now, also considering that an M1 hull is about a 45 cm longer and 6cm slightly wider than that of K1 and the turret also somewhat bulkier and taller (roof-height), I doubt there is significant difference in armor level at least as far the weight thereoff is concerned (Which doesn't rule out difference in protection level due to a more effective armor type being deployed on one and not on the other = i.e. less penetrable for a given weight)
Last edited: