Korea's new tank K-2 black panther
- Thread starter knprk8
- Start date
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 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.
It is a very good tank. It is certainly the best tank in the world for fighting in mountains. Korea has lots of mountains, a place not generally considered very good tank territory. I wish the US had bought a few of them and tried them out in Afghanistan to see how well they could do. The US has recently brought more tanks into Afghanistan to some initial successes but over all I have not heard what the final results are.
The Canadians and Danish are operating (or have operated, not 100% on current status) Leopard 2's in Afghanistan, not sure which models but according to Wiki (bad source, i know) Denmark operates some L2A5DK's and the Canadians some L2A6's [1]
[1] Leopard 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Couple of videos too (hope that clears things up and heads things back on topic
)http://www.nato.int/multi/2007/071121b-afghan-stories/video/071121b-01.wmv
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pERJTfdgrjg&list=FLZg1YAzeX3ivEXE9Vsm0Sgg&index=41&feature=plpp_video"]Afghanistan Canadian Forces in action Leopard 2A6M - PionierPanzer Badger & Kodiak - KMW Rheinmetall - YouTube[/nomedia]
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6
US bought 20,000 of them or i think they r planning to buy them.
[Mod Edit: 2nd warning and 7 more specific points to note:
(1) As other members have pointed out: Where is the source for this? Failure to provide sources for a source challange from a Mod may result in a ban. Any more nonsensical posts like this, without a proper source and you will be banned for a longer duration.
(2) Copying parts of an article, without sourcing, is also frowned upon.
(3) While you can't post links yet, given your post count but you can still type out the source (eg article 'name', page number and publication).
(4) Observe proper forum decorum, which means no profanity, and spell in full (i.e. no text message style short cuts like 'r' or 'u').
(5) No one-liners and post whoring, read the forum rules.
(6) Observing the forum rules in a requirement of posting and you are banned for 7 days for failure to heed a prior Mod Warning (to give you a chance to read the forum rules before posting again).
(7) No reply to a Mod warning is necessary.]
Last edited by a moderator:
Jack Johnson
New Member
US wants to buy 20.000 Korean tanks...?
But yeah, the K2 seems to be the best tank in the world at the moment. Only weak spot is the armor, there the Leo2 and Challenger still hold the advantage.
Especially the Leopard 2 has proven to be extremly resiliant, a Canadian Leo 2 drove over a mine and the crew only survived because the Leopard 2 is the only tank in the world which features suspended seats.
So that might be a disadvantage for the K2, IEDs and stuff.
But yeah, the K2 seems to be the best tank in the world at the moment. Only weak spot is the armor, there the Leo2 and Challenger still hold the advantage.
Especially the Leopard 2 has proven to be extremly resiliant, a Canadian Leo 2 drove over a mine and the crew only survived because the Leopard 2 is the only tank in the world which features suspended seats.
So that might be a disadvantage for the K2, IEDs and stuff.
Um... the current US tank fleet is less than 10,000 M1 Abrams of all variants, including several thousand M1s in storage. Tripling the size of the US tank fleet in a time of national debt and military budget cuts sounds like pure fantasy.
Unlike NATO MBTs, the K2 is untested. It is impossible to claim being the best without having been proven in the heat of combat. What a tank is capable of on paper may differ from its reality.
Unlike NATO MBTs, the K2 is untested. It is impossible to claim being the best without having been proven in the heat of combat. What a tank is capable of on paper may differ from its reality.
I agree, a quick google brought nothing up for me and i'd have thought the US buying 2000 examples of a non-US MBT (bought or planning to) would be very big news.
Not to mention that the cost of buying 2000 K2s (total cost of $17 billion USD using the numbers given on Wiki), intergrating them all into the US's military infrastructure, retraining all the crews to be capable and getting rid of most/all the M1's left over would be enormous. So is it likely during this economic crisis? Not really.
I too am calling BS on that statement, unless I see a credible source of course.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is BS, the U.S is not purchasing any type of armored vehicle from ROK. We have more than enough heavy armor that is just as good and in some areas better than the K2.
I think the Abrams is probably a better tank where tanks are traditionally favored in use for combat, especially in the classic tank on tank fight. But tanks are the most decisive when they are use used against infantry in open country. If you can keep the Abrams fully gassed that is. The Abrams logistical requirements are its biggest detractor not it combat effeteness. But there are three areas where tanks are at a disadvantage, one is in the mountains, two is amphibious warfare, and three is in the restricted cities.
True the K-2 has never been tested in combat so we cannot know for sure if they balanced all of the requirements that a tank must meet to fit together well but at least it is an attempt to tackle the difficult mountain environment where they can be very useful but also difficult to employ. It is a very good tank as far as we know and if it performs as expected the best Tank in the world for Korea.
As far as the US is concerned our greatest weakness in this area is an amphibious armor where the Chines have the best tank, at least on paper.
The U.S doesn't have issue's keeping their logistical support in pace with the M1 series tanks, this is an old debate that doesn't warrant any type of concern for the U.S or other countries that are currently using them. If it does present itself as being an issue then there will be other power packs that can be used, that have already been designed and tested.
What I know of the K2 tells me that it is a very capable vehicle and will do just fine, the proven in combat debate doesn't hold much in this day and age due to technology advancements when it comes to design phase, implementation and field testing. The only weakness that I can see would be in regards to the active defense systems that are being tested, but everyone seems to be having the same issues currently.
Amphibious tank capability is not a big concern nor requirement. Current U.S battle doctrine is much different that what the Chinese may have a requirement for.
From what i hear there is a effort underway to get a replacement engine with alot more range going not sure if it is still a go.
Well, to rephrase that a bit :
Has the leopard been hit with state of the art Anti-tank weaponry, IEDs & other anti-armor explosives like the Abrams, Challenger 2 & Merkava IV have ?
Would it be able to survive hits from advanced Russian Anti-tank missles like the AT-14 Kornet like the Merkava IV did ?
Thats dragging it off topic too far, thats just inviting this to turn into a detailed discussion on what the Leopard 2 should be able to withstand and all the debate that brings as well, this isn't the thread for that.
I believe it'll be more than a match than anything NK has on the field, but one begs the question is it neccesary to build 'the most expensive MBT ever' just to counter NK? I mean surely you could buy more common export MBTs and save the money, or is the terrain-specific attributes of the K-2 + all the tech inside worth the extra money?
I know about unit numbers running up costs and all, but surely during this economic crisis it would have been better to still get a capable tank but save a vast sum of money?
Also, some websites have tipped this to be the most advanced MBT in the world, how true is this claim?
A few nice clips of the K-2
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-wx6DLhdBo&feature=player_embedded#"]Republic of Korea MBT K2 Black Panther - YouTube[/nomedia]!
I see you have a point there, Rob. I apologise for the off-topic remark, but I myself have always wondered how the latest German tank fares against modern weaponry. TBQH Germany hasn't had it's tanks tested in combat since WWII.
As far as I remember, before the K-2, Leopard 2E6 & Merkava MkIV were regarded as the world's most advanced tank
About the K-2, any word on this having and active defensive measures like the Israeli Trophy system that the Merkava IV has, or something like the FB2B2 system that connects the Abrams with the rest of the ground & air forces ?
As far as I remember, before the K-2, Leopard 2E6 & Merkava MkIV were regarded as the world's most advanced tank
About the K-2, any word on this having and active defensive measures like the Israeli Trophy system that the Merkava IV has, or something like the FB2B2 system that connects the Abrams with the rest of the ground & air forces ?
As far as being tested in combat goes, I think it's worth reiterating what Eckherl said:
So I wouldn't be putting too much emphasis on whether a tank has been in high intensity "tank on tank" type battles when it comes to evaluating its capability relative to its peers. I think (and I could be wrong here, there's a few ex-tankers around here who I'm sure can correct me) if you're interested in the relative performance or survivability of a given tank, researching the technologies used in the tank would probably be more instructive than whether it's been stamped as "combat-proven" or not. That's just my personal opinion though, your mileage may vary.
I wouldn't be worrying about the survivability of the Leopard 2 though, from what I understand it addresses the issue of armour protection pretty comprehensively, though you'll be hard-pressed to find specifics on armour composition for modern MBTs... maybe someone else here could tell you more but as I said, the specifics are hush-hush.
The Leopard 2 has been deployed for quite some while now in Afghanistan, by two different countries, Canada and Denmark. I think most people focus "just" on the name and the whole package without looking a bit deeper. Even Wikipedia gives as some basic understanding just how important, a bit like in the automobile industry in general, the suppliers are. It is not just the design of the parts per se, but also the experience at managing the manufacturing. For example (Wikipedia):
MTU/Tognum powers many AFV among them MBTs among them the Merkava 4, Leopard 2 and the K-2. The roughyl 1900 units of the new US GMV will also be powered by US-built German engines.
MTU/Tognum powers many AFV among them MBTs among them the Merkava 4, Leopard 2 and the K-2. The roughyl 1900 units of the new US GMV will also be powered by US-built German engines.
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.
Powerpack and Cannon are important elements of an MBT, but as in other sectors the supply chain and the supply systems have become much more international. The K-2 seems to be an ambitious design, but suffered from flaws in very critical areas. Perhaps in this regard the push to go homegrown or at least licensed went a bit too far in the short run.
Last edited:
Sure the Leopard II "only" had to face IEDs of all kinds and low level infantry operated AT weaponry.
But it's not like the Abrams or Challenger faced the latest Russian gun/ammo or ATGM threats in Iraq. And when they did some flaws popped up like with every other tank design. The Merk IV faced Kornets but it's not like it shrugged them off with ease although I am sure any modern tank would have suffered the same under the conditions the Merks had to operate in Lebanon.
I defenitely go with Eckherl and others here. Combat is not the defining factor of a good tank. I am certain that for example during ODS or OIF a modern Leopard II or Leclerc wouldn't have performed any worth than the Abrams or Challis.
There is a reason why other countries like SK, India, Japan or Italy are importing components and know how from the major tank/defence companies in order to produce their first or second "indigenious" tank.
But it's not like the Abrams or Challenger faced the latest Russian gun/ammo or ATGM threats in Iraq. And when they did some flaws popped up like with every other tank design. The Merk IV faced Kornets but it's not like it shrugged them off with ease although I am sure any modern tank would have suffered the same under the conditions the Merks had to operate in Lebanon.
I defenitely go with Eckherl and others here. Combat is not the defining factor of a good tank. I am certain that for example during ODS or OIF a modern Leopard II or Leclerc wouldn't have performed any worth than the Abrams or Challis.
There is a reason why other countries like SK, India, Japan or Italy are importing components and know how from the major tank/defence companies in order to produce their first or second "indigenious" tank.