Poland Buying Korean Tanks?

[Markus Becker]

Looks like it.

 

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/korean-k2-black-panthers-in-warsaw-poland-could-soon-field-the-world-s-most-capable-battle-tanks-under-9-billion-deal

 

Why no Leo II has been asked over on our FB site. Was it that we weren't willing to share technology or didn't the Poles want to buy from us? Which I'd get considering a certain pipeline.

[JasonJ]

800 K2s sounds quite formidable.

[Special-K]

I saw this last night:

 

https://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2020_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/south_korea_could_sign_a_deal_with_poland_for_the_sale_of_800_k2_main_battle_tanks.html

 

 

 

The South Korean Defense Company Hyundai Rotem is planning to partner with the Polish government to develop and produce 800 K2 Black Panther main battle tanks (MBTs).

According to Hyundai Rotem, the official project could be announced in the first half of this year. The total project will be divided into two stages to produce a total of 800 main battle tanks.

According to previous reports, the Polish government partnered with Hyundai Rotem to produce next-generation tanks is scheduled to start in 2023. In 2016, Poland has already inked a deal with South Korea for the purchase of 120 K-9 self-propelled howitzers. Poland could be the first foreign customer for the K2 Black Panther MBT.

The K2 Black Panther is a new generation of main battle tank (MBT) designed, developed and manufactured in South Korea by the South Korean Company Hyundai Rotem. The K2 was unveiled for the first time to the public during the Defense Exhibition ADEX at the Seoul Airport in October 2009.

The main armament of the K2 Black Panther consists of a German-made Rheinmetall 120-mm/ L55 smoothbore gun produced under license in South Korea. The gun is fitted with an automatic loader which ensures the loading of projectiles on the move even when the vehicle moves on uneven surfaces. The 120mm gun can fire about 10 rounds per minute.

The layout of the K2 Black Panther MBT is conventional, with the driver's compartment at the front, fighting compartment in the center and engine and transmission at the rear. The armor on the Black Panther consists of an unknown type of composite armor and an Active Defense System utilizing Explosive Reactive Armor blocks.

The K2 Black Panther was previously motorized with an MT 833 diesel engine from Tognum, but the latest version of the tank is now fitted with a license-built German MTU 883 diesel engine and Renk transmission system. The K2 can run at a maximum speed 70 km/h on surface roads while being able to maintain speeds up to 48 km/h on off-road conditions.

I wonder what advantages the K2 has over its competitors that Poland would choose it over them - especially with any logistical advantages that more Leopards might have.

-K

Edited January 28, 2020 by Special-K

[Ssnake]

I wonder what advantages the K2 has over its competitors that Poland would choose it over them - especially with any logistical advantages that more Leopards might have.

 

Defense deals of these proportions are rarely (if ever) based on technological merits alone. There is very likely a strong political element in that decision, and I wouldn't be surprised if that element started with an N and ended with "ordStream II".

[bd1]

french and germans could not synchronize their tank projects with poles?

 

https://www.defence24.com/mbt-for-poland-without-involvement-of-the-polish-industry

[Daan]

It is of a rather conventional design for a vehicle touted as representing a 'new generation' of MBT, which could potentially face truly new design concepts such as the T-14.

[lastdingo]

K-2 was optimised for the uneven terrain, with hydropneumatic suspension helping with the maximum gun elevation and depression.

The Poles rather need something to deal with woodland (and 120 mm L/55 doesn't come to mind when thinking about 'tanks in woodland').

 

Moreover, they BADLY need better pontoon / amphibious pontoon vehicle equipment. Theirs is Cold War vintage that was meant to support T-72's weight only.

The British M3 Amphibians that used to be in Germany may soon be gone to their island and be unavailable in the first days of conflict.

Many Polish army bases are in the West of the country, behind the Vistula river. Others are too close to Kaliningrad Oblast and could be hit in the first minutes of conflict with artillery.

 

https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2016/10/how-to-fix-polish-armed-forces-siy.html

https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2016/09/bridging.html

 

An actual investment in 800 MBTs would (if it happens) signal either that

1. the Polish army bets on KE for AT work,
2. the Polish army bets on manoeuvre warfare,
3. the Polish army wants to expand very much or
4. there's something corrupt going on

Not long ago there was a move for an infantry-centric national guard IIRC. The Polish economy grew very much during the last decade.

Maybe it's #3.

[lastdingo]

It is of a rather conventional design for a vehicle touted as representing a 'new generation' of MBT, which could potentially face truly new design concepts such as the T-14.

Tanks have followed combat aircraft in that they are nowadays rather defined by their electronics.

T-14 is supposed to get many fancy electronics, but the only things it offers that you cannot emulate with a K2 is the all-or-almost-nothing approach to armour protection; maximum protection for crew capsule, turret likely vulnerable to IFV autocannons. That's not decisive IMO.

[Daan]

I find the crew capsule in the hull of the T-14 a rather attractive design element. With current sensor technology (i.e. Iron Vision) the crew is likely able to a get as good or even superior situational awareness compared to a traditional layout, is moreover located hull down in its entirety and then also completely separated from the main gun ammunition storage. The conventional K2 design has the bulk of its ammunition in the hull, with no hard separation from the crew. I thought the Syrian videos of T-72s and Leopard 2s blowing up or cooking off completely after ATGM hits were rather sobering. Of course an active protection system may prevent legacy ATGMs from touching any AFV, but it may not be foolproof especially against future systems.

[lastdingo]

A T-14 would very likely be much easier to mission kill in battle than a K2.

 

The Poles need a tank for the Great patriotic War of 2030 against Russia. Crew survival is second to mission effectiveness for that.

 

The comparison would be like

One mission-ready T-14 and two partial spares kit T-14 (firepower killed by some weak threat that shredded the poorly protected turret)

vs.

Two mission-ready K2 and one K2 wreck with dead crew

 

The latter is more useful for national defence and may very well end up with less KIA total, for the effective 2nd tank could save infantrymen lives or the lives of other tankers.

 

 

The extreme emphasis on protection for the crew is borne from stupid wars of occupation where almost nobody was convinced that the mission was worth KIAs.

The matter is completely different when you're defending your nation for real. The lives of 800 MBT crews would be a footnote in that context.

[Markus Becker]

The Poles need a tank for the Great patriotic War of 2030 against Russia.

 

Or to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the German invasion in style.

[Daan]

Such calculations are of course all speculation. Given that the T-14 is radical new design and the first of its generation, teething problems hampering its serviceability may naturally very well occur. What concerns me is not the specifics of the T-14 as such, but its overall concept: the crew in a well protected hull capsule with access to ample information from the vehicle's own sensors and data link, an unmanned turret with auto-loader and extra protection provided by an APS. Unfortunately, such a concept is not available in the West, as tank development there has mostly stalled and armies must content themselves with piecemeal upgrades to 40 year old designs.

 

I disagree with your renunciation of efforts to specifically limit crew casualties, not only from a moral perspective but also in the interest of preserving expensive and well-trained personnel.

[lastdingo]

The T-14 has so many vulnerable yet important components on the turret surfaces (sensors, smoke dischargers, APS dischargers, APS sensors) that there's little point in armouring it against 57 mm or more. Even the spraying by a 30 mm autocannon stands a very good chance at firepower killing a T-14. That's quite inevitable by the concept.

 

So it's safe to say that T-14 will be firepower killed and thus mission killed fairly easily. APS will not help against that.

It's also rather safe to say that no army would have plenty stocks of spares or even spare turrets. They would prefer to add the relatively modest extra cost of buying the hull and engine as well and have something to show. A firepower-killed T-14 would very likely be no T-14 for the rest of a weeks- or months-long hot conflict.

[Daan]

Having lots of sensitive equipment mounted externally is of course not a prerogative of the T-14 or a similar design with a hull-mounted crew capsule. Updated western legacy designs have also meanwhile grown veritable gardens of equipment on their turrets. Whilst a proper hosing of 30 mm or a nearby artillery shell may not penetrate the turret's armor, it may well badly damage the optics, RWS, APS and external communications, thus producing a mission kill.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Daan

[lastdingo]

The T-14's crew is much more dependent on the electronic sensors, though. The TC cannot simply open a hatch and lock 360° around. The gunner has no non-electronic optical backup sight.

[Daan]

True indeed, an auxiliary sight is an advantage in emergencies. However, such a tank could hardly be called fully mission capable.

[Stefan Kotsch]

It should be noted that the commander and gunner both have fully functional sights. In this case, the waiver of a (third) auxillary sight is acceptable.

[Interlinked]

I'm reminded of an anecdote where the firepower of a BMP-2 was tested against a BMP-1. The BMP-2 fired 24 HE rounds at a T-72 and destroyed all of the sights and vision devices on the tank, and ripped off the anti-aircraft machine gun.

 

This can happen to any tank, and it's now even easier with airburst ammo. Or a Toyota with a ZU-23-2 on its flatbed. So IMHO, a T-14 really doesn't really have a significantly higher chance of suffering a mission kill from lesser threats compared to any conventional tank.

[Corinthian]

A T-14 would very likely be much easier to mission kill in battle than a K2.

 

The Poles need a tank for the Great patriotic War of 2030 against Russia. Crew survival is second to mission effectiveness for that.

 

The comparison would be like

One mission-ready T-14 and two partial spares kit T-14 (firepower killed by some weak threat that shredded the poorly protected turret)

vs.

Two mission-ready K2 and one K2 wreck with dead crew

 

The latter is more useful for national defence and may very well end up with less KIA total, for the effective 2nd tank could save infantrymen lives or the lives of other tankers.

 

 

The extreme emphasis on protection for the crew is borne from stupid wars of occupation where almost nobody was convinced that the mission was worth KIAs.

The matter is completely different when you're defending your nation for real. The lives of 800 MBT crews would be a footnote in that context.

 

I have a feeling that the T-14 will be given add-on armour modules for its turret when war happens.

[lastdingo]

I have a feeling that the T-14 will be given add-on armour modules for its turret when war happens.

Many of the important turret components are on the outside because they require it for their function. You cannot really armour a sensor's lens, a radar's antenna, a smoke discharger's muzzle, an Afghanit muzzle and so on.

 

What you can do is you can treat the exposed parts as consumables and stock them up accordingly.

Military bureaucracies won't do that. 200 tanks to show and play with (including lots of jobs for officers) is much better to them than 100 tanks with appropriate spares stocks.

[Inhapi]

I have been thinking about this this quite some time.

 

With all the unprotected kit sitting outside the armour nowadays, i wonder what would be the most effective way to mission kill an AFV.

 

just spray it with (heavy) machine gun bullets ?

 

It seems to be an issue that is little adressed. We always hear about the fantastic protection that this new tank has, but the number of nessecary and almost unprotected systems seem to go up every time. Somtimes i wonder wether a RPG style weapon with some sort of frag/shrapnell load would not be more effective than with a (older type) HC.

[Mighty_Zuk]

So many things I want to comment on, and my PC just decided to yeet itself somehow.

 

May the mobile version bless me with 0 accidental page refreshments during these trying times.

 

1)Poland wanted and still wants to take part in the Franco-German tank program, but is so far being denied that opportunity.

South Korea, on the other hand, is desperate to penetrate into the European market and in recent years has been making very lucrative offers most manufacturers would not agree to offer.

The K9 gives them the edge and reputation, and they now have their foot in the door. With the K2 they can turn this into long term market domination.

This could be intentional fake news by Poland, to tell Germany and France the fire's burning under their feet.

 

With Poland holding an exceptionally large tank fleet, as well as being the most threatened NATO country by Russia, its decisions have an equally exceptional effect on EU nations' decisions in defense.

 

2)It is true the K2's conventional layout greatly limits its potential to evolve in the future to become a "next generation tank", as truly next gen tanks are centering around a 2-3 man crews with entirely remade roles, not the cold war era 3-4 man crews (due to role changes, new 3 man crews and old ones are not interchangeable).

 

To create a crew capsule, the whole vehicle must be redesigned, albeit with many of the existing components.

This means it would be more economical to build new tanks for a 2-3 man capsules.

 

If Poland truly goes through with this plan, it would have to start producing new tanks of a different variant, before the K2 production ends, if it wishes to keep up. Or at least retire them very quickly.

It can not hope to compete for the mid to low end market because the Leo 2 currently dominates.

 

3)The T-14 protection is not all or nothing. The hull is protected even where not necessary for crew protection alone, and the turret is about as armored as any modern tank's turret is. And if that sounds odd, consider the following:

The T-14 has only the gun mantle as armor, which is universally rather weak on MBTs of the 3rd generation. The turret cheeks are non existent, and only house components that are traditionally vulnerable as well, as they have to be external.

 

4)Heavily dependent on point 3, the T-14 is not easier to mission kill than a K2. To the contrary. A penetration to the turret is not any more likely. A penetration to the hull would be catastrophic for both.

And both are likely to sport anti-KE APS.

 

5)Survival of the crew as a greater emphasized need than survival of the whole tank, is not a stupid idea born out of occupational wars, but came out of very simple economy of attrition war.

 

If a tank brigade engages, for example, and it loses a battalion of tanks, then relief forces could minimize those kills to mission kills, instead of letting them become total kills.

And when you relieve said forces, you'd rather 100% of crewmen stay alive and 0% tanks remaining, than have the whole crews dead but all tanks mostly undamaged.

 

Why? Because a tank costs approximately $5 million dollars but can be produced at a rate of your choosing.

A citizen would, over his lifetime, provide more profit to the state than the tank's worth.

 

You could just train a lot of crews in advance, but it takes a year to train them which makes the whole process a lot less flexible. Train too many and you've basically wasted manpower.

Train too few and you cannot man all the tanks. With tanks you can deal with surplus.

 

And last but not least, this approach lets you maintain a somewhat higher percentage of experienced crews in the army.

 

Overall, training of crews is a messier, more dynamic process. Tanks are produced on a line, so you want to take care of your crews first, tanks last.

 

6)The T-14 is indeed more vulnerable to external damage, but the next generation of tanks will have this same vulnerability. To combat this, AFVs could have panoramic sights for each of the crewmembers, i.e 2 panoramics plus 1 fixed rather than today's 1 panoramic and 1 fixed.

 

And in addition to this, tanks would have additional vision blocks for IronVision-like systems, and it is possible to fix the vulnerability issue by using yet another set of optics, this time instead of a fixed vision block, an array of protected cameras (embedded into armor), that would provide all around, less comfortable or quality vision, but something nonetheless.

 

7)Advances in situational awareness have nullified the idea of using machine guns or HE shells against tanks when within their LOS and range.

The conceptual thinking, driving all kinetic weapon developments, has been that a single munition must get the job done.

 

A bullet? Has to have enough power to pierce body armor AND inflict post armor damage to neutralize a combatant.

 

A missile? Has to have sufficient warhead size for its target, and the capability to be fired solo.

 

And the same applies here. You fire a shell and expect it to penetrate the vehicle and do enough damage to take it out, after the APS, after the ERA, and everything else.

 

The only solution any army will accept, for mass service, manning, and all around operation, is a full spectrum solution? Why would anyone buy a system that is not expendable in price but going to be expended out of necessity, for results that are ambiguous at best?

Edited January 31, 2020 by Mighty_Zuk

[lastdingo]

Boy, so many mistakes.

 

I'm not in the mood, so I'll just point out that a modern MBT does not cost 5 million USD nowadays.

Even the link by OP states 9 billion for 800 MBTs, which yields a 'drive away' price of around 7--9 million apiece. That's the first announcement, and could easily go up well bast 12 billion.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Boy, so many mistakes.

 

I'm not in the mood, so I'll just point out that a modern MBT does not cost 5 million USD nowadays.

Even the link by OP states 9 billion for 800 MBTs, which yields a 'drive away' price of around 7--9 million apiece. That's the first announcement, and could easily go up well bast 12 billion.

That was a rough number that shows the average expected price of a complete tank.

Of course, any purchase of tanks would include spare parts which inflates the actual price. Nice of you, however, to claim without any basis that there are "so many mistakes", and get all pedantic about just 1 minor detail.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Mighty_Zuk

[lastdingo]

You stated that the T-14 would not be easier to mission kill, and completely ignore the argument why it would be.

There's actually an argument for this downside in the room, you waltz in, ignore it, proclaim your opinion - and frankly, why should I care about your opinion?

 

#4 appears to mistake mission kill for penetration. Mission kill can be either mobility kill (such as severed track or clogged air filter) or firepower kill (busting the sights, messing up alignment, autoloader defect, tube damaged etc.). A mission kill does not require a penetration at all.

 

In #7 you completely ignore the vulnerability of external components.

 

"Tanks are produced on a line, so you want to take care of your crews first, tanks last."

The wars that really matter would not last long enough for production to be a relevant factor.

 

Your 'idea' about panoramic sights runs into difficulties with physics understood since the 18th century. The inability of unmanned turret tanks to offer a direct or panoramic mirror all-round vision to any crew member has been discussed in tanks literature since the 80's at the latest.

 

The thing about mission killed tanks being 'mostly undamaged' completely ignores what I wrote about spare parts before.

 

 

Long story short: You've set back the thread with nonsense, disinformation, immature reasoning and ignoring of what was written in not even 2 pages so far.