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; This tank is the most expenive tank in the world and some people argues that it is the best tank ...
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.
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.
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.
slightly off topic,but when has the leopard 2 been tested in combat?
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]
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.
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 OPSSG; January 13th, 2012 at 11:30 PM.
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.
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 OPSSG; January 13th, 2012 at 04:50 PM.
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.
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.
________________
"Here, across death`s other river
The Tartar horsemen shake their spears"
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.
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.
________________
"Here, across death`s other river
The Tartar horsemen shake their spears"
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.
slightly off topic,but when has the leopard 2 been tested in combat?
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 ?
)
