For anyone interested in Tanks.

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Amish

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2003
Messages
178
Just found some info on the next generation Korean and Japanese tanks in development:

XK-2
(South Korea)
(IMG:http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/images/xk-2_fmbt.jpg)

Crew : 3
Combat Weight : 58~62t
Size(L×W×H) : 7.8 ×3.6 ×2.5m
Main gun : 120mm/L55 Autoloader
Ammo 40rds
12.7mm/7.62mm
Max. Speed : 70km/h
Engine : 1500hp/1800hp German
Armor : SAP/ERA(Pessied)/Modure
Year : 2007

TK-X
(JAPAN)

(IMG:http://sus3041.web.infoseek.co.jp/contents/calcula/newmbt_image.jpg)
Crew : 3
Combat Weitht : 40~45t
Main gun : 120mm/L50
Ammo 36rds
12.7mm/7.62m
Max. Speed : 70km/h
Engine : 1500hp
Armor : SAP/Modure
Year : 2005~2006



I thought you guys might find this interesting.

p.s. japan will have 200-220 Type-90 tanks and plus the 200-300 TK-X tanks

South Korea will have 1500-1700 K1/K1A1 tanks and plus the 1000-1500 XK2 tanks

They will be the best tanks in the world when they come out. The only western nation I know of that has a running future tank program is russia's black eagle tank. It has even less armor then the T-80U tank in favor of a lighter more mobile weapon for a changing battlefield enviroment (rapid response). The u.s. has a future tank program but its still in on the papers, they haven't built a prototype yet. "
 
We seem to want to replace our 70-ton Kings of the Battlefield with lighter, air-mobile varieties. I can understand the logic that says a brigade in country is worth more than a division 10,000 miles away, but I worry for the safety of future armored cav units when the favored weapon of the enemy has changed from the AK-47 to the RPG. The Abrams is pretty much immune to shouder-fired weapons, at least the ones our enemies have access to. I don't believe that the Stryker vehicles will give the same level of protection.
 
Being one of those former cav types, I don't see the US forces giving up a heavy MBT. The strikers are nice but they will only be used to augment. We used a stragy called battle teams. When we deployed, we combined an armour bat with a mech infantry bat. to make two battle teams of m1s and m2s it worked very well.
 
Didn't Cadillac produce a light tank with the appearance of the M-1? It wasn't accepted over the armored car. I think the tank showed up in a movie once.
 
Plastic tanks for plastic bullets? What if the enemy resorts to red hot pokers?:p
 
Didn't Cadillac produce a light tank with the appearance of the M-1?
Click to expand...

The Cadillac-Gage Stingray. In service with Thailand. Uses the low-recoil version of the old NATO-standard L7.
 
I do believe I ran across mention of a study group investigating as to whether or not tracked vehicles had survivability on the future battlefield. The thrust of that group's idea was promoting the clover-leaf wheeled vehicle concept for the tank replacement.

That's the 3 suspended wheels on one end of the axle, super-ATV concept taken to military contract. Think 4 to 6 axles per side. Personally, if I were a tanker & that thing showed up, I'd bail.

900F
 
We debated the senility of tanks in a modern weapons class I took here. We pretty much came to the conclusion that tanks are on the threshold of senility. Essentially, the tank offers no additional offensive capability yet it still costs more and more each year to defend itself. The revenge of the infantry was seen with France developing a shoulder launched guided antitank missle after WWII. It has been pretty much downhill for a tank here. Previously, a tank could only be defeated by another tank or perhaps artillery fire. Now, a tank can be defeated by nearly anything, infantry, air, other tanks, guided naval weapons, etc. If your enemy is not well equipped for antitank operations however, they're screwed. See Israeli tanks vs. Palistinians. It boils down to the fact that antitank kit is getting cheaper and more effective, and the tank is not getting any more effective yet more costly.

And I'm with Jim, I want giant Gundam-style tanks from the Japanese. :D
 
There are those in uniform with rank that feel the MBT has seen it's day. The same Generals are pushing the Stryker.

The MBT does have a place on the modren battle feild. The MBT works best in wide open spaces not in urban settings. Nothing else carries the firepower mixed with mobility as a MBT. The Armored Cav consept of combined arms on the Company/Troop level, is most likely the future for the MBT.

The Stryker, I feel is a slip down hill for the US military. I see the Stryker as our "Peace Keeping" vehicle in the future. Useful in urban settings to transport troops, make road blocks and such.

The Styker does though make up for the lack of Airborne armor, if the 105mm gun model is produced. The 82nd at one time had tanks or recon tanks if you will. They now rely on a ready detachment from the 3rd Infantry Division consisting of 2 Abrams and 2 Bradleys. That need to be flown in on large wide body transports that need airfields to land.
 
Can you say RPG-8? Thats what there using in limited numbers today to zap our M1's. The reactive armor is defeated by the double shape charge carried by the new anti tank RPG 8.
 
ARGarrison- What place would that be? I'm curious to hear your opinion simply because tanks interest me.

Blue Line- I'm pretty sure that the M1 doesn't use ERA, but rather ceramics only.
 
Reactive armor is little explosive charges all over the vehicle, to detonate the warhead before the penetrator can pierce the armor.

You can tell a Reactive Armor vehicle usually because they look like they have little boxes stuck to them.

The Abrams doesn't have reactive armor.
 
They have a 250,000 strong Self Defense Force. They have tanks, artillery, fly F-15's, Apaches, etc.
 
If Japan didn't have an Army, who would fight Godzilla?

Japan's military is the JSDF: Japan Self-Defence Forces. Japan's Constitution allows a purely defensive military; after all, there was the very real threat that Japan would've been invaded by the Soviet Union after the 2nd World War. It's close to China and North Korea as well.

Japan is one of only four nations in the world that fly F-15s, for instance. (The other three being the US, of course, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.)
 
No reason why an Abrams could not be fitted with reactive armor. I think I read somewhere the M-1 Heavy had plates of depleted uranium armor in addition to the chobham armor. I'm guessing the reason for it was to help defeat DU anti tank darts.

Tanks have never been the do-all that some people subscribe to. My bro in law was a tanker and we used to have some fun conversations. Open field operations are obviously its forte, and he was always puffin he chest out as to the tanks capabilities. Two situations would usually bring that to a quick halt-urban warfare and traversing through the woods. He didn' like either one:D

Tanks by themselves have some serious disadvantages, but tanks are also a valuable part of a combined arms team. I think tanks will continue to have a part in battle-technology is going to be making them durable and light for the future.

Japan was prohibited from having offensive weaponry as part of their surrender, and the US was charged with assisting in their defense until recently when that part of the treaty expired. Basically, they got a free ride from Uncle Sam for 50 years.
 
The Abrams doesn't have reactive armor.
Click to expand...

By my understanding, reactive armour is a handy package update to allow tanks with homogenous plate to defeat shaped-charge warheads. The Abrams doesn't have reactive armour as the Abrams doesn't need reactive armour. None of the other current-generation Western MBT's have it, either (Leopard II, LeClerc, Challenger II, et al.)

Reactive armor is little explosive charges all over the vehicle, to detonate the warhead before the penetrator can pierce the armor.
Click to expand...

Actually, I found a really cool essay somewhere on line that explains how Reactive Armour works. I'd always assumed it had something to do with the blast of the charge on the armour diverting the plasma jet of the detonating warhead. It turns out that the magic ingredient is the steel plates on the front and rear of the armour block. I'll try and find the essay; you'll grok it in all its high-tech, gee-mister-wizard coolness. I know I did. :)
 
Japan was prohibited from having offensive weaponry as part of their surrender, and the US was charged with assisting in their defense until recently when that part of the treaty expired. Basically, they got a free ride from Uncle Sam for 50 years.
Click to expand...
IIRC...Japan disarmed itself when it wrote it's constitution after WW2. The US was shocked and had no desire to have Japan disarm but what was done was done.
 
I was always under the impression that ERA was a laminate. X layers of RHA (Rolled Homogenous Armor) then Y layers of explosives, repeat as necessary. I'd be interested in seeing what the article has to say.
 
None of the other current-generation Western MBT's have it, either (Leopard II, LeClerc, Challenger II,
Click to expand...
The Leopard II, Challenger II, and the Abrahms all have Chobham armor, as it was a joint collaboration between W. Germany, the UK, and the US.

They did fit the M-60 MBT with reactive armor, as well as the Marine's and the 82nd Airborne's fly-into-battle-and-parachute-in armor. It basically works by sandwiching C-4 between two steel plates, and having it explode on impact of the ammo. IIRC.;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top