South Korea launches Amphibious Tank XK2

[Manfred]

The Swedish "S" tank was retired because the fixed gun was too limited. It cannot fire at targets ahead or behind while on the move, something a modern main battle tank must be able to do.

However, assault artillery is different. It is for attacking fixed positions, and can do its job without a turret. This South Koeran machine looks as if it could handle a 155, 180 or even a 203mm gun in a limited-traverse mount.

Does this sound practical? I think a platoon of these machines would be a welcome addition to Armored regiments is Iraq, or even Afganistan.

 

[TrangleC]

The Swedish "S" tank was retired because the fixed gun was too limited. It cannot fire at targets ahead or behind while on the move, something a modern main battle tank must be able to do.

However, assault artillery is different. It is for attacking fixed positions, and can do its job without a turret. This South Koeran machine looks as if it could handle a 155, 180 or even a 203mm gun in a limited-traverse mount.

Does this sound practical? I think a platoon of these machines would be a welcome addition to Armored regiments is Iraq, or even Afganistan.

I can't imagine that. I think between the MBT and the normal artillery systems on one side and helicopter gunships, aircraft precision bombs and cruise missiles on the other side, there is no need anymore for some kind of specialized "anti fortification tank" or something like that. That was a concept from WW2 that was only used by the Axis and the Sovjet army because air support wasn't sufficient.
I'm pretty sure if the german Luftwaffe would have kept air supperiority over Europe and if there would have been a good successor to the Ju-87 (which was mainly used as "flying artillery" after all), things like the "Sturmtiger" and similar concepts wouldn't have been considered useful even back then.

From what you hear about Afghanistan and Iraq, it seems as if a majority of infantry battles are resolved by airsupport. It almost seems as if virtually every building in which a sniper or a group of enemy combatants are sitting is bombed from the air or with a rocket, rather than engaged with infantry.
When you look at the many videos showing combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, it rather seems as if the only purpose of the Infantry is to locate and to pin the enemy with supression fire so the airforce can be called to bomb the house, cave or trench he is sitting in.

What i want to say with that is that this seems to be effective enough (if you don't care too much about collateral damage) not to need a special vehicle for such purposes.

 

[merocaine]

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.

did'ent the Koreans use the same kind of suspension, abet a more limited design on the K1 tank? I like the idea of the tank kneeling to increase/decrease the elevation of the main gun, very handy in mountainious terrain. With the deep fording ability and suspension I would Imagine mobility played a large part in drawing up plans for this tank, more than it would in europe and the states anyway.

 

[eckherl]

did'ent the Koreans use the same kind of suspension, abet a more limited design on the K1 tank? I like the idea of the tank kneeling to increase/decrease the elevation of the main gun, very handy in mountainious terrain. With the deep fording ability and suspension I would Imagine mobility played a large part in drawing up plans for this tank, more than it would in europe and the states anyway.

Yes - this was a feature on the K1`s also.

 

[eckherl]

The Swedish "S" tank was retired because the fixed gun was too limited. It cannot fire at targets ahead or behind while on the move, something a modern main battle tank must be able to do.

However, assault artillery is different. It is for attacking fixed positions, and can do its job without a turret. This South Koeran machine looks as if it could handle a 155, 180 or even a 203mm gun in a limited-traverse mount.

Does this sound practical? I think a platoon of these machines would be a welcome addition to Armored regiments is Iraq, or even Afganistan.

kinda the issue with the German JP Kanone also, both vehicles were designed to operate in the defensive ambush mode. I like what Germany did with theirs after they took them out of service, they converted them to ATGM`s and forward observation vehicles for artillery, does anybody know if Germany is still using them.

 

[Waylander]

No Jaguars (gun) or Jaguar II (ATGM) are in service. The Panzerjaeger units attached to our Panzergrenadier bns (Mech Inf) has been disbanded.

No need for them anymore. FAOs are using Marder (to be replaced with Puma) and Fennek.

Back to topic.

I also don't think that such a specialised vehicle is needed.

A-stan may be an extreme example because of total air superiority of NATO forces with virtually no air defence besides some MANPADs, HMGs, and small calibres.

But with the introduction of programmable 120mm, intelligent 155mm, GMLRS, and the ability of infantry to carry a variety of ATGMs, RPGs, Panzerfaust, etc. with special bunker buster and thermobaric rounds there are enough solutions even without CAS by planes or helicopters available all the time.

 

[Manfred]

I see.

The thing that worries me, what truely bothers me is that we in the west seem to take air superiority for granted. The US has few effective AA systems, none of which have faced a serious test for half a century. I wonder what will happen if we ever have to fight without that umbrella.

Okay, so the concept of assault artillery is dead, I'll let it go, but I have other questions- such as the pricetag of 8.5 million, is that right? Costs only go up... I am a little amazed that Korea itself can afford the tank, let alone anyone else.

 

[eckherl]

I see.

The thing that worries me, what truely bothers me is that we in the west seem to take air superiority for granted. The US has few effective AA systems, none of which have faced a serious test for half a century. I wonder what will happen if we ever have to fight without that umbrella.

Okay, so the concept of assault artillery is dead, I'll let it go, but I have other questions- such as the pricetag of 8.5 million, is that right? Costs only go up... I am a little amazed that Korea itself can afford the tank, let alone anyone else.

So correct with our shortfall of not having enough AA assets, the price tag is a sticker shocker even to the South Koreans, but with their economy they will not have a issue in purchasing them, their economy is booming.

 

[eckherl]

Man I can't type.

And I have no idea if they use parts of the Leo II components.

Yep - Hyundia makes the engine pact under license.

 

[merocaine]

such as the pricetag of 8.5 million, is that right? Costs only go up... I am a little amazed that Korea itself can afford the tank, let alone anyone else.

I think there counting on long production runs and export orders to lower the unit cost. From what I've read its more advanced than the Le Clerc when it comes to a fire on the move capability.
Does anyone know what kind of armour it uses, and what type of active protection system it uses?

 

[Waylander]

The problem is that by now nobody from Germany I know thinks that the Leclerc is better with firing on the move than the FCS upgraded Leo IIs (From A5 on) or Abrams (from A2 on).

I also think that 8.5 million is a huge price.
Maybe too huge.
Many countries may decide to buy surplus Leos with good upgrade options in the future or russian T-90s (Or M1s with US military aid ) which come for a much lower price.

 

[Manfred]

T-90s again?
I thought the lesson of the 1991 Gulf war was clear; If you want a mess of cheap tanks to bully your own people around, buy Russian tanks. If you want a few tanks that can defeat an invading army, buy something like what the S Koreans have built.

I bet the Taiwanese already have an eye on this machine.

 

[swerve]

The problem is that by now nobody from Germany I know thinks that the Leclerc is better with firing on the move than the FCS upgraded Leo IIs (From A5 on) or Abrams (from A2 on).

I also think that 8.5 million is a huge price.
Maybe too huge.
Many countries may decide to buy surplus Leos with good upgrade options in the future or russian T-90s (Or M1s with US military aid ) which come for a much lower price.

Most surplus Leopard 2s have already been sold, so "many countries" can only buy them if they buy small numbers. So far, about 1500 secondhand Leopard 2s have been sold. The number still for sale depends on how many the Bundeswehr keeps in reserve, whether the Swedes sell on their ex-Bundeswehr 2A4s, & whether the Swiss sell their surplus, but the maximum, assuming no Bundeswehr reserve, & both the Swedes & Swiss sell, is less than half that. In reality, I think the Bundeswehr will keep some reserve, limiting the number for sale to maybe 500.

Australias refurbished ex-US M1s are only marginally cheaper than new-build M1s. IIRC, they're actually a little more expensive than Egypts lower-spec M1A1s. Egypt uses US aid to buy M1s, but few if any other countries will be able to do that. The USA is fussy about who it sells M1s to, & fussy about how US aid is used.

But still, I agree, it will be hard to export at that price. Very few potential customers.

 

[Waylander]

Yeah if we are conservative the number of available Leos might be that low. But if I look at my government I don't expect many Leos to remain in storage.

Germany tends to offer nice packages of new build Leopard 2A6EX together with some older Leopard IIA4.

Can Korea give some similar offers?
I don't expect them to give away their K1s so this could also be a problem for them exporting them.

But time will tell.
New tank designs are rare these days and this baby defenitely looks hot.

 

[merocaine]

It looks hot indeed, a real force multiplier, and a bit of an overkill when it comes to the north koreans armour! one can only presume there looking behond the north koreans when it comes building this baby, with that price tag there not building them to turn a profit, thats for sure.

 

[eckherl]

Yeah if we are conservative the number of available Leos might be that low. But if I look at my government I don't expect many Leos to remain in storage.

Germany tends to offer nice packages of new build Leopard 2A6EX together with some older Leopard IIA4.

Can Korea give some similar offers?
I don't expect them to give away their K1s so this could also be a problem for them exporting them.

But time will tell.
New tank designs are rare these days and this baby defenitely looks hot.

Actually South Korea was going to sell K1`s to Malaysia in the mid nineties, but the deal fell thru, some of the issue was the M68 105mm guns.
I agree with you that for what they are trying to sell them for and even the cost on the K1A1, it will be cheaper for countries to look into other tank models.
I also do not see what is so special about the Leclercs FCS, it is good but the later generation Leo`s and M1 series tanks are just as good if not better.

 

[eckherl]

Most surplus Leopard 2s have already been sold, so "many countries" can only buy them if they buy small numbers. So far, about 1500 secondhand Leopard 2s have been sold. The number still for sale depends on how many the Bundeswehr keeps in reserve, whether the Swedes sell on their ex-Bundeswehr 2A4s, & whether the Swiss sell their surplus, but the maximum, assuming no Bundeswehr reserve, & both the Swedes & Swiss sell, is less than half that. In reality, I think the Bundeswehr will keep some reserve, limiting the number for sale to maybe 500.

Australias refurbished ex-US M1s are only marginally cheaper than new-build M1s. IIRC, they're actually a little more expensive than Egypts lower-spec M1A1s. Egypt uses US aid to buy M1s, but few if any other countries will be able to do that. The USA is fussy about who it sells M1s to, & fussy about how US aid is used.

But still, I agree, it will be hard to export at that price. Very few potential customers.

Yes - Australia`s M1s are a little bit more expensive over the Egytians model, but it does offer a better armor package and FCS. Egypt produces the M1A1 in their own country under license, rumor is that they are going to purchase additional M1A1`s with some of the M1A2 upgrades.

 

[eckherl]

It looks hot indeed, a real force multiplier, and a bit of an overkill when it comes to the north koreans armour! one can only presume there looking behond the north koreans when it comes building this baby, with that price tag there not building them to turn a profit, thats for sure.

yes - they are looking at all potential viable threats in that regoin. China and Japan. The kicker is that yes it does have good offensive capabilities and if a war breaks out, it will be fighting the majority of it in a defensive mode due to the terrian.

 

[merocaine]

I wonder about the terrian sometimes, both the UN forces and the North Koreans managed pretty rapid advances inspite of the terrain, but obviously, things werent as fortified back then.

 

[blue_shark]

EDIT:

I delete all XK2 pics and videos.

don't want to share those pics here. funny forum and members.