This is a discussion on Korea's new tank K-2 black panther within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Eeshaan
Well, to rephrase that a bit :
Has the leopard been hit with state of the ...
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?
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 ?
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 being tested in combat goes, I think it's worth reiterating what Eckherl said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eckherl
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.
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):
Quote:
Production of the K2 tank has been suspended since then as the homegrown engine and transmission, known as a “power pack,” was found to be defective, the Associated Press reports.
“Given the circumstance of development for the domestically built power pack, a deployment date of the K2 tank was delayed to 2013 from 2012,” DAPA spokesman Jeong Jae-un was quoted as saying.
The “power pack” of Black Panther, based on the German-made MTU-890, is made up of a 1,500-horsepower diesel engine and transmission. According to DAPA spokesperson Jeong Jae-un, Korea will replace the defective Korean-made parts with German-made parts if the defects are not corrected by October 2011.
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.
Quote:
TU propulsion systems selected to power U.S. Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)
Aug 24, 2011
- Both GCV Technology Development contracts feature MTU propulsion systems
- Based on MTU Series 880 and 890 engine platforms with proven reliability, durability and compact design
Friedrichshafen/Detroit, 24 August 2011. The specialist for propulsion and power solutions Tognum has been selected as the preferred partner for power and propulsion by both of the project teams who received Technology Development contracts last week from the U.S. Army for its Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program. As such, Tognum America, Detroit (Michigan) based US subsidiary of Tognum AG and formerly known as MTU Detroit Diesel, will provide propulsion systems based on the proven MTU Series 880 and 890 engine platforms tailored to meet the specific needs of each vehicle platform. The two vehicle development teams are led by BAE Systems and General Dynamics Land Systems.
The platforms of Series 880 and 890 engines are based on technologically advanced high-speed diesel engines with an unrivaled power-to-weight ratio and a broad range of capabilities. These engine platforms have a proven track record in militaries throughout the world and are the clear technology leaders in power density for ground combat vehicles.
...
The MTU propulsion systems to support the GCV program production will be built at Tognum’s US facility in Aiken, South Carolina.
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.
Quote:
It was also planned for the K2 to field Rheinmetall's experimental 140 mm smoothbore gun, though this had to be abandoned when Rheinmetall ceased development upon the rationale that its current weapon, the 120 mm / L55 would be more than adequate to counter prospective armored threats for the foreseeable future. The K2's gun was subsequently reconfigured to the L55, along with necessary modifications for ammunition capacity. The vehicle is capable of mounting the 140 mm gun with minimum modifications should the need arise. The gun's autoloader is similar to that of the French Leclerc.
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.
________________
"The first criterioun in war remains decisive action. Everyone, from the highest commander down to the youngest soldier, must constantly be aware that inaction and neglect incriminate him more severely than any error in the choice of means.
Last edited by Firn; January 15th, 2012 at 06:48 AM.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
________________
"The first criterioun in war remains decisive action. Everyone, from the highest commander down to the youngest soldier, must constantly be aware that inaction and neglect incriminate him more severely than any error in the choice of means.
Last edited by Firn; January 17th, 2012 at 10:49 AM.
