Agree. In caseo of LeClerc, this may largely be smaller due to a more compact engine. Kind of like what Leo 2 could have been if it were produced with something like the Europack to begin with (which didn't exist then, but the point it that fitting Europack in Leo 2 leaves a substantial free space in the rear, or so I've read). Then again, the rear is not where most of the armor weight is...
New turkish tank !!???
- Thread starter deathomen
- Start date
Exactly.
The Leclerc gets most of it's saved weight from the short hull.
The turret is not that small compared to other tanks while the turret of the Abrams is a little bit bigger than for example a Leo II turret.
Different to compare, really.
The Leclerc gets most of it's saved weight from the short hull.
The turret is not that small compared to other tanks while the turret of the Abrams is a little bit bigger than for example a Leo II turret.
Different to compare, really.
Yes Tatra I do have a full understanding on U.S tonnage versus European, you seemed to fail to realize though that General Dynamics had the primary contract for K1 design, the K1 weighs in at around 51 *U.S tons*, consider that the K1 also is sporting a hydro suspension which brings in some hefty weight also, vehicle size when comparing armor protection on both of these tanks is overall a weak point with the amount of weight difference between the two. And your *true* weight numbers are off when comparing M1 series tanks.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)
There's always some variation in numbers from various sources. That's why the number I used were linked to their source. If you don't like those numbers, go complain to those webbies, not to me. I merely used them to illustrate a point, which I think I did quite adequately (even assuming weight of various M1 versions was not 100% correct, this does not invalidate the argument, namely that metric and short tons have been confused by some).Yes Tatra I do have a full understanding on U.S tonnage versus European, you seemed to fail to realize though that General Dynamics had the primary contract for K1 design, the K1 weighs in at around 51 *U.S tons*, consider that the K1 also is sporting a hydro suspension which brings in some hefty weight also, vehicle size when comparing armor protection on both of these tanks is overall a weak point with the amount of weight difference between the two. And your *true* weight numbers are off when comparing M1 series tanks.
I am perfectly aware of the role of GD in the development if the K1 and I fail to see how GD having the primary contract explains anything about weighs. However, if K1 weighs 51 short tons, as you suggest, then that is only about 46,000 kg and K1A1 about 49,000 kg. How come I find no sources online that give that number (incl. professional sites like army-technology, armada etc)? Can you point me to some credible ones?
Read this http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_hyundaik1.html
It claims combat weight (which is what we're comparing): 51,100kg
It's sources are: Foss, Christopher. Jane's Main Battle Tanks, 2nd Edition, Jane's Publishing Company Ltd, London, 1986.
Foss, Christopher. Jane's Tank Recognition Guide, HarperCollins, Glasgow, 1996.
(gee, same author of which I have a 1978 german language edition book, which puts XM-1 at 52,6 metric tons i.e. 52,616 kg)
Have a look at www.army-technology.com: Is the latest M1A2 version (69.54 ton) really that much heavier than the latest Merkava 4 (65 ton), the latest Chally 2 (62,5 ton) and the latest Leo2 (62 metric ton) ? Or does 69,54x0.907=63 ton sound more plausible? Is K1A1 (54,5 ton) really in the same weight class as T-90S (46,5 ton), as you suggest?
Last edited:
Who is complaining about numbers, are you not the one who is trying to lecture me on the U.S system versus what they are using abroad, my comment to you was that I do have a full understanding on the different weights and measures that are in use. You were trying to make a point that the armor protection level on a K1 was most likely on par with a early model M1 which is pure speculation on your part, to use the vehicle size of both tanks as rational reasoning behind some of your speculation holds no known facts to this regardless of what you are reading from some of these sites, the K1 doesn`t have the same type of armor that is used on a M1 even though they do use a form of composites. My sources for some of these weights actually come from U.S Army - 10 manuals. I think that you are trying to lure me into a hostile debate by the way you have made a attempt to switch gears on this discussion, you first brought up DU armored M1A1s along with the LEO 2 tank comparison, now that you have had a couple of days to stew or research on my response you are right back at comparing the K1 to the M1, please stick to one subject.There's always some variation in numbers from various sources. That's why the number I used were linked to their source. If you don't like those numbers, go complain to those webbies, not to me. I merely used them to illustrate a point, which I think I did quite adequately (even assuming weight of various M1 versions was not 100% correct, this does not invalidate the argument, namely that metric and short tons have been confused by some).
I am perfectly aware of the role of GD in the development if the K1 and I fail to see how GD having the primary contract explains anything about weighs. However, if K1 weighs 51 short tons, as you suggest, then that is only about 46,000 kg and K1A1 about 49,000 kg. How come I find no sources online that give that number (incl. professional sites like army-technology, armada etc)? Can you point me to some credible ones?
Read this http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_hyundaik1.html
It claims combat weight (which is what we're comparing): 51,100kg
It's sources are: Foss, Christopher. Jane's Main Battle Tanks, 2nd Edition, Jane's Publishing Company Ltd, London, 1986.
Foss, Christopher. Jane's Tank Recognition Guide, HarperCollins, Glasgow, 1996.
(gee, same author of which I have a 1978 german language edition book, which puts XM-1 at 52,6 metric tons i.e. 52,616 kg)
Have a look at www.army-technology.com: Is the latest M1A2 version (69.54 ton) really that much heavier than the latest Merkava 4 (65 ton), the latest Chally 2 (62,5 ton) and the latest Leo2 (62 metric ton) ? Or does 69,54x0.907=63 ton sound more plausible? Is K1A1 (54,5 ton) really in the same weight class as T-90S (46,5 ton), as you suggest?
You are the only person being hostile here and IMHO that's because you equate a response with a quote to a personal attack. Concerning complaints about numbers, did'n't you state "your *true* weight numbers are off when comparing M1 series tanks"? And I think I've pointed out I do take into account that a certain armor weight need not mean the same level of protection, as this depends on the armor type. There is no stewing (I have no time for that), all my responses are have been of the cuff. And FYI, I've stuck to one topic: differences in combat weights and possible causes thereoff.Who is complaining about numbers, are you not the one who is trying to lecture me on the U.S system versus what they are using abroad, my comment to you was that I do have a full understanding on the different weights and measures that are in use. You were trying to make a point that the armor protection level on a K1 was most likely on par with a early model M1 which is pure speculation on your part, to use the vehicle size of both tanks as rational reasoning behind some of your speculation holds no known facts to this regardless of what you are reading from some of these sites, the K1 doesn`t have the same type of armor that is used on a M1 even though they do use a form of composites. My sources for some of these weights actually come from U.S Army - 10 manuals. I think that you are trying to lure me into a hostile debate by the way you have made a attempt to switch gears on this discussion, you first brought up DU armored M1A1s along with the LEO 2 tank comparison, now that you have had a couple of days to stew or research on my response you are right back at comparing the K1 to the M1, please stick to one subject.
These combat weights from a site which is at least consistent in mentioning both short and metric tons for all MBT models it discusses.
M1 60 tons (54 mt)
M1A1 63 tons (57 mt)
M1A2 68 tons (61 mt)
Leo 2A4 60.79 tons (55.15 mt) (aka Pz87/Strv 121)
Challenger 1 68 tons (62 mt)
T-64B 43 tons (39 mt)
T-72M1 45.7 tons (41.5 mt) without ERA
T-72B 49.1 tons (44.5 mt)
T-80B 49.1 tons (44.5 mt)
T-80U 50.7 tons (46.0 mt)
Type 85-IIM 45.2 tons (41.0 mt)
Last edited:
No hostilities with me,You are the only person being hostile here and IMHO that's because you equate a response with a quote to a personal attack. Concerning complaints about numbers, did'n't you state "your *true* weight numbers are off when comparing M1 series tanks"? And I think I've pointed out I do take into account that a certain armor weight need not mean the same level of protection, as this depends on the armor type. There is no stewing (I have no time for that), all my responses are have been of the cuff. And FYI, I've stuck to one topic: differences in combat weights and possible causes thereoff.
These combat weights from a site which is at least consistent in mentioning both short and metric tons for all MBT models it discusses.
M1 60 tons (54 mt)
M1A1 63 tons (57 mt)
M1A2 68 tons (61 mt)
Leo 2A4 60.79 tons (55.15 mt) (aka Pz87/Strv 121)
Challenger 1 68 tons (62 mt)
T-64B 43 tons (39 mt)
T-72M1 45.7 tons (41.5 mt) without ERA
T-72B 49.1 tons (44.5 mt)
T-80B 49.1 tons (44.5 mt)
T-80U 50.7 tons (46.0 mt)
Type 85-IIM 45.2 tons (41.0 mt)
Yes - your numbers are off inregards to the M1 series tanks, are you looking at numbers that add full combat loads ie: fuel and ammo loads or empty vehicles, again you are pulling numbers off of sites that do not take this type of information into account, do these numbers take into account some of the later generation M1s or M1A1s, or how about M1A2s are they SEP standard numbers or just first phase uipgrades. Also your numbers are off inregards to T-80U.
@Waylander
Knowing that you are a LEO2 tanker and may I assume that you have at least served on a A4 standard model, do the published numbers account for a full vehicle load out, do they take into account the different model upgrades that the LEO2 series have evolved into.
Again, they are not my numbers, they are numbers from a variety of online sources as well as a few off-line sources (from which we can, in the face of any possible errors, at least triangulate and approximate 'true' values) and these sources and numbers are used to illustrate a point (i.e. they are not the point itself)No hostilities with me,
Yes - your numbers are off inregards to the M1 series tanks, are you looking at numbers that add full combat loads ie: fuel and ammo loads or empty vehicles, again you are pulling numbers off of sites that do not take this type of information into account, do these numbers take into account some of the later generation M1s or M1A1s, or how about M1A2s are they SEP standard numbers or just first phase uipgrades. Also your numbers are off inregards to T-80U.
It is standard practise in books as well as on internet to report combat weight. (However, as much as hate it, something being standard practise does not mean everybody abides by that practice). I've taken care to look for sources listing combat weight, so unless those sources itself made mistakes, the numbers are generally comparable.
Now, if you have better numbers, please post them and their sources (rather than just talk about them as if they were already made public here).
If you feel that your numbers are solid then so be it, you are entitled to your opinion(s) just like everyone else on this forum.Again, they are not my numbers, they are numbers from a variety of online sources as well as a few off-line sources (from which we can, in the face of any possible errors, at least triangulate and approximate 'true' values) and these sources and numbers are used to illustrate a point (i.e. they are not the point itself)
It is standard practise in books as well as on internet to report combat weight. (However, as much as hate it, something being standard practise does not mean everybody abides by that practice). I've taken care to look for sources listing combat weight, so unless those sources itself made mistakes, the numbers are generally comparable.
Now, if you have better numbers, please post them and their sources (rather than just talk about them as if they were already made public here).
The 55,1 tons of the Leopard IIA4 are full combat load (ammo, fuel, snorkel, tools, equipment,...).@Waylander
Knowing that you are a LEO2 tanker and may I assume that you have at least served on a A4 standard model, do the published numbers account for a full vehicle load out, do they take into account the different model upgrades that the LEO2 series have evolved into.
One can add some weight for the crew and their personal gear.
All weight infos in the Bundeswehr are given for full combat load. Anything else wouldn't make sense because the MLC for vehicles is always measured with full combat load.
And jup, I served on A4 only. I have been on A5s and A6, though.
Thank you.The 55,1 tons of the Leopard IIA4 are full combat load (ammo, fuel, snorkel, tools, equipment,...).
One can add some weight for the crew and their personal gear.
All weight infos in the Bundeswehr are given for full combat load. Anything else wouldn't make sense because the MLC for vehicles is always measured with full combat load.
And jup, I served on A4 only. I have been on A5s and A6, though.
thanamestolga
New Member
looks ALOT like the leo2
lets hope they dont cancel this project....
lets hope they dont cancel this project....
thanamestolga
New Member
They made those things lowridersThought i would put this video up of the K2 since the tank will be based a lot on it technology wise...
YouTube - South Korea Next Generation Main Battle Tank XK2 í‘í‘œ
haha
couldnt imagine what the bloods and crips would do with those
Heruamarth
New Member
Project is moving faster than expected, it seems.
First prototype was scheduled for 2013, it is announced that it will be unveiled at 10th of May, in IDEF 11. Apparently primary design phase is over, and a mock up or a scaled model will be presented. I heard production of first prototype may begin in this December and we’ll see the first prototype up and running in the first months of 2012.
First prototype was scheduled for 2013, it is announced that it will be unveiled at 10th of May, in IDEF 11. Apparently primary design phase is over, and a mock up or a scaled model will be presented. I heard production of first prototype may begin in this December and we’ll see the first prototype up and running in the first months of 2012.
The project was initiated with an agreement signed between Otokar and Undersecretariat for Defense Industries of the Republic of Turkey on March 30, 2007, when the Defense Industries Executive Committee, chaired by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, awarded a contract worth approximately $500 million to Otokar for the design, development and production of 4 prototypes of a national main battle tank. This will be Turkey's first MBT development program since 1943, when prototypes of a Turkish national tank were produced in Kırıkkale[citation needed], but never reached full-scale mass production.Project is moving faster than expected, it seems.
First prototype was scheduled for 2013, it is announced that it will be unveiled at 10th of May, in IDEF 11. Apparently primary design phase is over, and a mock up or a scaled model will be presented. I heard production of first prototype may begin in this December and we’ll see the first prototype up and running in the first months of 2012.
Otokar, a company owned by Istanbul-based Koç Holding, is one of the major automotive manufacturers in Turkey. Otokar, providing solutions both in commercial and military range since 1963,[5] produced more than 25,000 units of military vehicle so far.[6]
Subsequently, in accordance with the later Defense Industries Executive Committee ruling, subcontractors were selected as follows:
- Technical Support Enabler, Rotem (Republic of Korea),
- Fire Control System and Command Control Communication Information System subcontractor, Aselsan A.S.,
- 120 mm 55 caliber Primary Weapon subcontractor, state owned MKEK (Mechanical and Chemical Industries Corporation),
- Armour subcontractor, Roketsan A.S.[7]
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%B0T%C3%9CP_Altay"]MÄ°TÃœP Altay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png[/ame]
The first protype drawing
Altay / Altay Türkiyenin ilk milli Ana Muharebe Tanký Türk Silahlý Kuvvetleri (TSK) Fotoðraf Galerisi - Turkish Military Photos
Best Regards.
Heruamarth
New Member
These were already known, and concept picture is well known. Is it really necessary to copy and paste half of the article on the program?[TR]AHMET;219507 said:The project was initiated with an agreement signed between Otokar and Undersecretariat for Defense Industries of the Republic of Turkey on March 30, 2007, when the Defense Industries Executive Committee, chaired by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, awarded a contract worth approximately $500 million to Otokar for the design, development and production of 4 prototypes of a national main battle tank. This will be Turkey's first MBT development program since 1943, when prototypes of a Turkish national tank were produced in Kırıkkale[citation needed], but never reached full-scale mass production.
Otokar, a company owned by Istanbul-based Koç Holding, is one of the major automotive manufacturers in Turkey. Otokar, providing solutions both in commercial and military range since 1963,[5] produced more than 25,000 units of military vehicle so far.[6]
Subsequently, in accordance with the later Defense Industries Executive Committee ruling, subcontractors were selected as follows:
- Technical Support Enabler, Rotem (Republic of Korea),
- Fire Control System and Command Control Communication Information System subcontractor, Aselsan A.S.,
- 120 mm 55 caliber Primary Weapon subcontractor, state owned MKEK (Mechanical and Chemical Industries Corporation),
- Armour subcontractor, Roketsan A.S.[7]
Best Regards.
Otokar is planning to unveil the tank in IDEF, and although it’s said to be the prototype, it’s too early to see a prototype yet, so probably a scaled down model or a mock-up will be introduced.
And they could design a SSTO space launcher to replace the Shuttle and a new stealth bomber to sell to China and a one person rocket pack so we can commute to work in the air and what else?Atilla [TR];135448 said:Turkey could gather them up, build an airplane to what they want, they could then export it to Turkic countries Pakistan, even Israel, Korea, Japan, Australia every nation that got shut in the face to buy the F-22, and then they could make up the development costs then they can even start on passenger airline airplanes. This should have happened in the early 90's, and this is just 2 different parts of the defense industry tanks and airplanes imagine the rest!
I think Turkey could be better of upgrading the large number of Leopard 1&2 tanks that they have rather than spending resources on a new tank design.
Germany has come up with very good upgrade kits and they can be installed cost effectively.
It would be a mistake to concentrate on new tank design when there is only limited demand (currently on from turkish army.....since there are no export orders).
Also it would neglect the still very capable fleet of leopards in the army.
Germany has come up with very good upgrade kits and they can be installed cost effectively.
It would be a mistake to concentrate on new tank design when there is only limited demand (currently on from turkish army.....since there are no export orders).
Also it would neglect the still very capable fleet of leopards in the army.