"It is always nice to be enthusiastic about a new toy of ones own country. Who's not? (Ok me on too many german systems )"
- New toys? Who gives a hoot about which country it comes from? This is supposedly a forum for defense issues for mature folks, not boys
- So much of this forum comprises of this kind of partisan childishness.
- Try considering this. Given that the traditional tank producing countries are all still suffering from indigestion from the Cold War tank race & either lack the political will or military justification for new tanks, this Korean tank represents the first implementation in an actual service deployment model for a long time. What has been bandied about by the Western countries has been actually implemented by an Asian technological powerhouse but some Westerners just dun seem to want to acknowledge it. Tsk tsk.
- Considering the frightening prospect that the whole world is already buying state of the art harddisk drives, SSDs, DRAM, NAND, CPUs, LCD panels, laptops and telecommunications (btw all that can be supplied by just 1 single Korean company - Samsung), this Western persistence in smirking is incredible.
"Defense against top-attack ammunition is not a feature of a new tank it is a feature of a active/passive self defense systems which can be adopted to a wiede variety of vehicles. The russians did this. The Israelis are going to do it with trophy. There are german and US systems in the pipe. Those can be added even to a T-55 if the customer whants it."
- Precisely the point. Pipeline dreams. While the West is still dreaming it, the Koreans have already implemented it into service and beginning mass production.
-What are you talking about? What good is a new tank if it does not acknowledge the threats in this current climate enough to integrate active defense systems as a standard? The Korean tank has implemented it as a standard system within their tank and kudos is due, whatever skin colour you happen to have.
- Furthermore, I was not stressing too much about the active defense system precisely because of the many albeit disparate and expensive options that u mentioned. Try to catch the point, its the implementation of top-attack ammunition IN A 120mm TANK GUN that changes the paradigm.
- It makes all current modern tanks vulnerable UNLESS they have an active defense system in place as a std. Or put Chobham armour on top. That is the issue!
- Its no longer about brute force in an APDS shot from an ever bigger gun.
"And what kind of intelligent 120mm round do you mean. I missed that one cold you give me some infos? "
- Try familiarising urself with the specs again before you miss something so critical to the current tank warfare paradigm.
"BTW, the record is at ca. 5km by a Challi in Iraq. Do you have an idea how small a tank gets at such ranges?"
- Do you not realise how the size of a target at any range is irrelevant? In this day & age of thermal imaging optic sights etc.! Whats the point u're making?
- That's the whole point of this implementation of a top-attack precision guided ammunition of the 120mm tank gun capable of a range up to 8 km! It made me sit up when I read it.
- No doubt the tanks in Iraq are probably creating new records everyday even as we type away. But the real issue is that any such hits in a real engagement are likely to be due to luck - i.e. stationary sitting duck target with constant environmental conditions.
- The current computerised fire control systems on tanks work only on a few key parameters. Eg. Laser rangefinders to compute range & azimuth to target, followed by environmental sensors to input temperature of gun barrel, air temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind direction, followed by algorithms that can at best work out other exotic factors such as progressive tank barrel wear & tear. At the extreme ranges of 4-5km, given the flight time of a few seconds, once the shell leaves the barrel, without precision guidance, it'll miss so long as the target so much as moves or changes direction unexpectedly. Or if the crosswinds or other atmospheric conditions BETWEEN the gun & target differ from the estimates of the tank's FCS.
- Precision guidance is the only way to break this paradigm, try to appreciate that first.
"More cramped working stations can also mean less combat crew performance. Just do add a negative side to the very true positive aspects you stated."
- Again, outdated paradigm. Modern tanks are different from the communist Soviet era tanks that u are clearly referring to. The communists never had regard for human safety, let alone welfare. Unlikely that the Koreans, a democratic country, given their auto-making expertise and appreciation of human ergonomics would neglect this.
Smaller exterior dimensions do not always equate to cramped interiors. The tank requires a crew of 3, not the 4 crew of 2 decades old Cold war Western tanks vintage. Autoloaders built into a tank represent 1 less person to legislate for comfort. Smaller more efficient engines obviously save even more space. State of the art computers are a fraction the size and power consumption. Again, its technological advancement
"As for the leading nation. I can still think of many other countries which match these capabilities."
- How? Not many are on actual order in large production capacity, nor will they be in the near future. Again while their capabilities are not in doubt, these countries do not have the appetite for more such investment. For the US the M1-Abram, which already costs a fortune given the huge numbers manufactured & at 65 tons on existing configuration is too heavy to realistically add anything more without a major re-design, its a victim of its own design limitation. There's also a constant fight to put more fuel into every available space to feed its fuel-thirsty turbine engine. After spending a fortune on the F22 & B2 to fight enemies that do not exist, plus funding a 2nd Vietnam in Iraq, they need Viagra for their military brass.
- For the UK, same issue, but furthermore, the Challengers are produced in such limited numbers, its unforeseeable that they can justify launching any new tanks! Perhaps, the Germans with their export success of the Leopard, might be able to afford R&D on a new platform but the politics of it make it difficult nonetheless.
- Which leaves the Soviets ...
"And for sure technological advancement is important.
But the problems on the export market for tanks these day have already been mentioned."
- Again you are totally missing the point. Advanced Asian economic countries like Korea & Singapore (largest weapons exporter in SE Asia) with their compulsory National Service do not build and design weapons purely as a for-profit product for the export market. They do so for national security first and foremost - such as the ability to manufacture unconstrained by licensing restrictions and the security of supply thru indigineous production. In supplying their armed forces (which are usually quite large for economical production given their compulsory conscription) with the best weapon systems for their own soldiers - they trust that if they are that good for their own needs, there will be foreign buyers for their weapon systems eventually.
- Whether there is an export market is irrelevant, its only a bonus, no more than a means to reduce costs through volume production. Try understanding their philosophy, they will commission it at 8.5 million apiece even w/o a single foreign buyer. For such countries, in fact all arms producing ones, even the US, the price for national security is worth every penny.
)