The suspension on the STRV-103 is also used for aiming the gun.
Japans constitution clearly states that they will never even sell a bullet to another country for military purposes, this could be changing though.
South Korea launches Amphibious Tank XK2
- Thread starter SATAN
- Start date
Japans constitution clearly states that they will never even sell a bullet to another country for military purposes, this could be changing though.
I sunk a tank in the Munson river in South Korea, and I sure wish that U.S tanks had a snorkeling system.Very nice.
You are right when stating that the suspension systems seems to be a really lovely toy.
The snorkel thing is indeed nothing spectacular.
They don't?
And i thought the M1 must have one and so the K1 surely would have one too. That is really astonishing me. Like Manfred pointed out that principle goes back to WW2 after all. I think i even heard about a case in which german tanks waded several miles through a river to appear in the back of a allied mechanized battalion during the battle at the bulge.
That is not a small but a major disadvantage, i'd say. In case of a major clush with the red army in Europe (WW3 or something like that), that would have meant a serious mobility limitation to the US tank force. There are many rivers in eastern Europe and the Balcans and even some cases in Germany, France and the Benelux countries that only got medieval bridges which you definitely don't want to cross with a 60 ton machine. And the bridges that are big enough can be bombed.
I guess it would be the same in Asia.
Yes, i just wanted to say that the principle has been around for a while and noone used it.
No, that is not correct. The Japanese constitution (you can read the official English version online here - http://www.sangiin.go.jp/eng/law/index.htm ) doesn't mention arms exports.
What Japan has is a set of three principles (see http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/un/disarmament/policy/index.html ), which don't have the force of law, although they were approved by the Diet. It's an administrative decision whether to include an item on the controlled list, & whether to issue an export licence, & can be changed by the government, without any revisions to laws. There are laws which empower the government to make such decisions (what we call "enabling acts"), but don't lay out details. The principles can be set aside by the government whenever convenient, & occasionally are, e.g. when Japan has supplied troops & equipment to the UN.
BTW, the USA has a waiver. This enables joint US-Japanese weapons developments, etc., without bureaucrats having to issue licences for the stuff which goes backwards & forwards. Just another administrative decision.
As long as I know only the USMC has deep forging kits for their Abrams.
And I have no idea why the army doesn't posses such euqipment. It is not really expensive or big.
We have the equipment for river crossing up to 2,40m diretly on our tanks and the big snorkels for rivers up to 4m are transported by the 1st company.
Those systems are so easy to use and cheap that I don't understand why it isn't used by everyone. :unknown
And I have no idea why the army doesn't posses such euqipment. It is not really expensive or big.
We have the equipment for river crossing up to 2,40m diretly on our tanks and the big snorkels for rivers up to 4m are transported by the 1st company.
Those systems are so easy to use and cheap that I don't understand why it isn't used by everyone. :unknown
Thanks Swerve for this good information.
That is correct in-regards to all USMC vehicles, When I served a couple of tours in South Korea on M60A3`s, the U.S Army showed their concern by issuing the drivers a inflatable life preserver
nfloorl: . On the M1`s we didn`t even get that.Yes - that is one big advantage the Russian tank models have over western designed tanks is the weight and size allowing them to cross the majority of bridges in Eastern European countries. Alot of the rivers in South Korea are quite shallow for the majority of the time, where it becomes a major issue is during the Monsoon season. My tank company actually became stranded on one occasion for two weeks because of the rivers over flowing, they had to airlift chow and other supplies by Chinooks and Black hawks. Can you amagine eating MRE`s for two whole weeks.:shudderThey don't?
And i thought the M1 must have one and so the K1 surely would have one too. That is really astonishing me. Like Manfred pointed out that principle goes back to WW2 after all. I think i even heard about a case in which german tanks waded several miles through a river to appear in the back of a allied mechanized battalion during the battle at the bulge.
That is not a small but a major disadvantage, i'd say. In case of a major clush with the red army in Europe (WW3 or something like that), that would have meant a serious mobility limitation to the US tank force. There are many rivers in eastern Europe and the Balcans and even some cases in Germany, France and the Benelux countries that only got medieval bridges which you definitely don't want to cross with a 60 ton machine. And the bridges that are big enough can be bombed.
I guess it would be the same in Asia.
Yes, i just wanted to say that the principle has been around for a while and noone used it.
Perhaps the new thing about it is that it doesn't need preparation to use the snorkel and go play submarine instantly?
To me it looks very much the same as the K1 apart from the main gun. Does anyone know if that 120mm/ L55 is by any chance the same gun we have on our upgraded Leo's?
BTW, the Puma will have a hydropneumatic suspension as well... Makes me think, because my father used to drive a citroen and everything on that car broke more than once except the suspension. And a smooth ride it was.
To me it looks very much the same as the K1 apart from the main gun. Does anyone know if that 120mm/ L55 is by any chance the same gun we have on our upgraded Leo's?
BTW, the Puma will have a hydropneumatic suspension as well... Makes me think, because my father used to drive a citroen and everything on that car broke more than once except the suspension. And a smooth ride it was.
Yes it is the same gun that is placed on the LEO2A6, they also are testing with the standard L44 gun. Also it does have a auto loader thus reducing the crew to three man.Perhaps the new thing about it is that it doesn't need preparation to use the snorkel and go play submarine instantly?
To me it looks very much the same as the K1 apart from the main gun. Does anyone know if that 120mm/ L55 is by any chance the same gun we have on our upgraded Leo's?
BTW, the Puma will have a hydropneumatic suspension as well... Makes me think, because my father used to drive a citroen and everything on that car broke more than once except the suspension. And a smooth ride it was.
Last edited:
regarding suspension
good suspension = cross country speed. In fact it is probably more important than horse power. Case in point being the Merkava (I).
good suspension also = ability to up-armor and/or re-engine at a later date
good suspension can also = lower life-of-vehicle maintenance
so, (imho) it is a very wise thing to invest heavily in if you are designing an indigenous AFV, as the other more high tech (and expensive) items can be developed later or imported.
cheers
w
good suspension = cross country speed. In fact it is probably more important than horse power. Case in point being the Merkava (I).
good suspension also = ability to up-armor and/or re-engine at a later date
good suspension can also = lower life-of-vehicle maintenance
so, (imho) it is a very wise thing to invest heavily in if you are designing an indigenous AFV, as the other more high tech (and expensive) items can be developed later or imported.
cheers
w
Some very good and valuable points that you have commented on.
Yes. However it remains to be proven if the hydropneumatic suspension is a good suspension for a tank. The technology has been around for quite a few decades and only now with the Leclerc and the Puma among the countries with the most experienced and sophisticated automotive industry and decades of experience and history of designing tanks it'll finally enter service.
Japan also has alot of experience with this type of suspension system, the Type 74 had it before the Type 90.
It is the same set up as the LEO2 series.It uses the same traditional snorkle system like other tanks before.
Look at the video provided in this thread.
Did they not still also use LEO2 designed automotive components.
I know that they used to use the engine pacts on the K88/K1`s.Man I can't type.
And I have no idea if they use parts of the Leo II components.