Poland Buying Korean Tanks?

[Nobu]

Such a purchase would effectively vault Korea ahead of Japan in the international arms sales sector.

 

Smart of Poland, to consider it, as they can take advantage of Korean eagerness to do a deal with it.

 

Stupid of Japan to allow it..

[Chris Werb]

OK, this is my take, having spent some time trying to fight T-14s with various systems in various scenarios in Steel Beasts

 

The turret is indeed relatively easy to mission kill, particularly from the sides and rear and even with autocannon at moderate ranges. The crew have no way of manually training and elevating the main armament should the drives or supporting electrics or electronics fail and there is no gunner's auxiliary sight, so it is much easier to get a firepower kill on a T-14 than Leopard 2A6, for example. The main optics are relatively easy to blind and particularly vulnerable to the likes of KETF. Main gun ammo is stored in a traditional Soviet style carousel - hit it and the tank explodes. Damage the autoloader and there is no manual back-up for that either. The crew in one module also makes it easier to kill the entire crew with one hit.

 

As to the argument that the crew in a firepower mission killed vehicle will just sit it out, well, I think that would be inadvisable. Assuming all other threats are dealt with, I tend to shoot until something explodes, burns or changes shape, just to be certain and I suspect that would occur often to disabled T-14s.

 

The argument about T-14s being made on a line. Well, OK, but the tanks are going to take longer to build in appreciable quantity than pretty much any conceivable conflict, even assuming the line was still intact and cash was available to build them, as Lastdingo pointed out.

 

The T-14, as modelled, is a ferocious beast and a worthy opponent, but it's not a quantum leap in capability or an inevitable development path for others to follow.

[charliebravo]

However, the Armata has an important reserve of power / weight ratio at its disposal, and may continue to assimilate greater volume of protection in the future for issues such as safeguarding the functionality of the tower ... for example.

 

Rgrds

[Chris Werb]

However, the Armata has an important reserve of power / weight ratio at its disposal, and may continue to assimilate greater volume of protection in the future for issues such as safeguarding the functionality of the tower ... for example.

 

Rgrds

 

Very true.

[Adam Peter]

Poland plans to take part in European tank project: president

 

 

WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland wants to take part in a project to create a European tank, Presient Andrzej Duda told a news conference with France’s President Emmanuel Macron during his Monday visit to Warsaw.

“We are going to talk about our participation in the project to build a European tank. We would like to take part in this project,” Duda said.

Poland and France discussed cooperation in the fields of defense and energy during the visit.

[Mighty_Zuk]

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.

1)A mission kill on an Armata is not more likely than one on any other tank for the following reasons:

A. The turret is much narrower than traditional turrets, with the only exposed part being the gun mantlet. The gun mantlet itself is not weakly armored when compared with other tanks, because no tank can afford significant armor there.

B. Penetration of the turret is less likely because of a smaller turret profile compared with other tanks. As the turret is in many cases the only exposed part of the tank, if used correctly, a hit on the T-14 is less likely than other tanks.

C. The optics and external components of the T-14 are not in any way more exposed than in other tanks.

 

So overall you got a tank with a lower chance of being hit, and if it's hit then its chances of remaining mission capable are not lower than other tanks. I addressed non-penetration mission kills in my previous post as well. You should read more carefully.

 

2)Want to talk about WW2? Vietnam? For small countries like mine, wars have to be short. But in the European theatre they may not always be so short. Eventually every army will maneuver around the losses of both tanks and crew, striving to create the necessary extra steps so you'll have a chance at a surplus rather than risk a deficit.

However, in such protracted wars, it is possible and even advised to create new frameworks all the time, such as new brigades and divisions, even armies, to build fresh units rather than get stuck in the reorganization of existing units all the time. You expand.

In short wars, typical for small countries, it is not so worthwhile because you won't create new large units that would only last a month or so, or you'll be stuck with dispersing the new units between the previously existing units.

 

Without straying too off topic, in both cases a preservation of experienced crews, and a fast production capability, are both very important.

And there are plenty of examples of technologies and techniques different tank designs include, that add to crew survivability without doing so at the expense of the tank's own survivability.

The most extreme case would be the Merkava's front engine, but then a dead engine can be replaced rather easily, with the remainder of the tank being intact.

 

3)What are those physical principles that you speak of?

How do they permit the use of one panoramic sight, but somehow 2 are physically impossible?

Being ambiguous and vague does not help in any argument.

[Mighty_Zuk]

OK, this is my take, having spent some time trying to fight T-14s with various systems in various scenarios in Steel Beasts

 

The turret is indeed relatively easy to mission kill, particularly from the sides and rear and even with autocannon at moderate ranges. The crew have no way of manually training and elevating the main armament should the drives or supporting electrics or electronics fail and there is no gunner's auxiliary sight, so it is much easier to get a firepower kill on a T-14 than Leopard 2A6, for example. The main optics are relatively easy to blind and particularly vulnerable to the likes of KETF. Main gun ammo is stored in a traditional Soviet style carousel - hit it and the tank explodes. Damage the autoloader and there is no manual back-up for that either. The crew in one module also makes it easier to kill the entire crew with one hit.

 

As to the argument that the crew in a firepower mission killed vehicle will just sit it out, well, I think that would be inadvisable. Assuming all other threats are dealt with, I tend to shoot until something explodes, burns or changes shape, just to be certain and I suspect that would occur often to disabled T-14s.

 

The argument about T-14s being made on a line. Well, OK, but the tanks are going to take longer to build in appreciable quantity than pretty much any conceivable conflict, even assuming the line was still intact and cash was available to build them, as Lastdingo pointed out.

 

The T-14, as modelled, is a ferocious beast and a worthy opponent, but it's not a quantum leap in capability or an inevitable development path for others to follow.

The issue of manual operation of the turret, plus some auxiliary non-electronic sight, indeed reduces from the T-14's ability to remain in the fight post-hit. However those downsides are inevitable and I will explain later why the T-14's path of development IS inevitable.

 

At least the sights issue can be fixed by creating a dispersed array of long range but poorly protected sights, and short range but well protected sights. The current IronVision system and its on-market competitors are using a single panoramic vision block, but using dispersed and stitched sights is technologically feasible. It just takes more development time because it makes stitching images more difficult and may require a lot of latency inducing processing to compensate.

 

I have proposed, in the past, to use KETF armed autocannons in parallel with main gun armament, albeit not for sight killing but for APS disabling, so that's not a bad idea, but is only feasible at limited ranges.

 

There is a growing interest, and emerging capability, to add some laser based hard kill APS to vehicles. It could double as a disabling element for sights. But its capability against APS would likely be lower.

 

Sitting in the tank after getting mission killed is neither the standard procedure, nor is it anywhere near what I suggested. The crews operate what they can, and if they can't they ditch and move to safety and wait for relief.

That is what I was talking about. Better for the relief force to find a bunch of surviving and healthy crewmen, than a bunch of intact tanks with blood and body parts covering the inside walls.

 

But you did add something that supports my point. If the crews are dead, the enemy will try to completely destroy the tanks if no more opposition is present.

If the tanks are bust, the crew can escape and get to safety unnoticed, so a tank with greater crew survivability will be less of a loss.

 

And finally, the T-14 is going by an inevitable path that Germany and France also suggest they're going with, Israel is going with, and the US is also highly likely to go with.

The direction is a 2-man base crew (driver and commander), with a 3rd station for remote systems operator, sitting inside the hull in an armored capsule, separate from the ammunition and therefore also from the turret.

The T-14 is not yet that, as it lacks the necessary situational awareness technology, but it is well positioned to evolve in that direction when the tech is ready.

 

So basically, all the major tank manufacturers are going through with this major change in paradigm, leaving South Korea, Japan, Turkey, and China with yet unknown plans for future development, but neither has yet ruled out this path.

 

What I think some could change, relative to the T-14, is the crew location. I think the crew should be at the rear, giving up some backup situational awareness in exchange for greater survivability.

[lastdingo]

Panoramic sights are no satisfactory answer for 360° vision on T-14 because the crew location doesn't allow for it. The turret blocks the line of sight. Even a distribution of 360° Mk 1 eyeball surveillance would not work.

 

KETZF has no real range issue. A release of the tungsten pellets at 3 km with 700 + m/s is easily enough to penetrate the unprotected or lightly armoured parts.

 

Dispersed small cameras are the way to go for 360° awareness (the bulky rearward driving camera design on Leo 2 is an embarrassment to the arms industry's engineers). It's not relevant for fire control past maybe 500 m, though. The calibration of dispersed sensors would be a nightmare and unacceptable in the field.

 

 

A. The turret is much narrower than traditional turrets, with the only exposed part being the gun mantlet. The gun mantlet itself is not weakly armored when compared with other tanks, because no tank can afford significant armor there.
B. Penetration of the turret is less likely because of a smaller turret profile compared with other tanks. As the turret is in many cases the only exposed part of the tank, if used correctly, a hit on the T-14 is less likely than other tanks.
C. The optics and external components of the T-14 are not in any way more exposed than in other tanks.

 

A The target size offered by the vulnerable sensors & electronics stuff is greater than with other tanks. T-14 is more dependent on at least the sensors becuase of no TC turret hatch.

 

B Autocannons are a thing. You appear stuck in MBT vs. MBT considerations here.

 

C Yet the crew is way more dependent on them. And you're actually incorrect; many backup gunner's sights of legacy MBTs are smaller and thus much less exposed.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Panoramic sights are no satisfactory answer for 360° vision on T-14 because the crew location doesn't allow for it. The turret blocks the line of sight. Even a distribution of 360° Mk 1 eyeball surveillance would not work.

 

KETZF has no real range issue. A release of the tungsten pellets at 3 km with 700 + m/s is easily enough to penetrate the unprotected or lightly armoured parts.

 

Dispersed small cameras are the way to go for 360° awareness (the bulky rearward driving camera design on Leo 2 is an embarrassment to the arms industry's engineers). It's not relevant for fire control past maybe 500 m, though. The calibration of dispersed sensors would be a nightmare and unacceptable in the field.

 

 

A. The turret is much narrower than traditional turrets, with the only exposed part being the gun mantlet. The gun mantlet itself is not weakly armored when compared with other tanks, because no tank can afford significant armor there.

B. Penetration of the turret is less likely because of a smaller turret profile compared with other tanks. As the turret is in many cases the only exposed part of the tank, if used correctly, a hit on the T-14 is less likely than other tanks.

C. The optics and external components of the T-14 are not in any way more exposed than in other tanks.

A The target size offered by the vulnerable sensors & electronics stuff is greater than with other tanks. T-14 is more dependent on at least the sensors becuase of no TC turret hatch.

 

B Autocannons are a thing. You appear stuck in MBT vs. MBT considerations here.

 

C Yet the crew is way more dependent on them. And you're actually incorrect; many backup gunner's sights of legacy MBTs are smaller and thus much less exposed.

1) What do you mean the turret blocks line of sight? The T-14's panoramic sight is on TOP of the turret, with a wired connection to the commander's screen. You either just place another one on top, willing to compromise on both sights having a certain dead zone when staring at each other, or just make a somewhat bigger module that contains two sights stacked vertically.

 

Or are you still stuck in the 80's where panoramic sight means non-electronic, optical periscopes?

 

2) For the effect of KETF, you don't really have a range limitation in theory. But in practice, its lower velocity creates a delay of several seconds between its impact and the main gun's impact, growing with the distance.

Today it's a non-issue. But in a few years it will matter. Part of the Carmel and OMFV effort is to create AI-based and sensor fused target identification, for whom those seconds will be enough to locate the target, scan it, ID it, and perhaps even return fire prior to the enemy's shell's impact. As a parallel and independent process it could deploy some countermeasures.

 

For the shooter it can mean that today it will work, but in a few years it might have to expect return fire before it can get a proper look at the target, preventing it from knowing whether it scored a hit.

[Chris Werb]

I'm really not sure about the argument that the T-14 is less likely to get hit in the turret than a vehicle with a manned turret with a comparable gun.

[Ssnake]

Especially not with airburst munitions (120mm DM-11, 30mm and 35mm KETF).

[GARGEAN]

I'm really not sure about the argument that the T-14 is less likely to get hit in the turret than a vehicle with a manned turret with a comparable gun.

Most of that "turret" is not turret, which is substantially smaller. Also is it really penetrable by autocannons in SB?..

[Ssnake]

I don't think it's relevant to a discussion about the vulnerability of sensors exposed to fragmentation effects whether the armor profile of the T-14 in a tactical simulation is 100% spot on.

[On the way]

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.

I don't think that is the reason at all. The Poles have 2 options when it comes to buying Leo 2s, non of which is attractive at all.

 

a) Buy the A4 base model that many countries have done, and upgrade it extensively up to A7 standard. This costs money, and at the end of the day, you still have a tank that is older then their PT-91s

b)Buy the brand new factory fresh Leo 2 A7s or better, which will be a much more expensive option and produce no offset economic benefits to the Poles.

 

By partnering with Hyundai, I am sure they will build at least 50% of the 800 tank order in a Polish factory set up by the Koreans. Creates employment and investment for their country. The down side is that the K2 is unproven in combat and of an unknown quality. But there are too many vids of Leo 2s getting blown up out there, and their T-72M/PT-91 are also based on a chassis that likes to cook off too when it gets hit. I guess they thought it couldn't get any worse with the K2.

[bojan]

I don't think it's relevant to a discussion about the vulnerability of sensors exposed to fragmentation effects whether the armor profile of the T-14 in a tactical simulation is 100% spot on.

Well, every damn tank today is horribly vulnerable to having sensors torn off by fragmentation, simply due the fact there are so many of those today on tanks. Sight heads are large, hard to armor and have to be open for a tank to be operational. Nothing you can do about that.

Conventional tanks have backups, including pretty foolproof ones, but in 90+% of situations retreating would be a better option than trying to fight with a tank that has lost majority of the sensors.

[Ssnake]

That's patently untrue.

 

On the M1 and Leopard, the primary sights have ballistic shield doors. While you can't close them on surprise attacks (by definition), it is possible to do so on the first signs of incoming artillery fire. Likewise the auxiliary sights are deep inside of armored wells that reduce the likelihood of a hit dramatically. On the latest Leo 2 generations, the shield doors still have a small hole allowing continued observation (no thermals, no laser, slightly reduced field of view, but you can still see enough to estimate range and engage targets under daylight conditions).

The vision blocks can be replaced, one or two spares are part of the regular combat load plan.

 

Of course, if you add radar sensors for an active protection system, these will become just as vulnerable as any other radar sensor array.

 

Above all, as long as the commander is still alive he can pop out his head after an attack to scan around with binoculars. It's totally old school, but try that with an unmanned vehicle concept.

[Chris Werb]

 

I'm really not sure about the argument that the T-14 is less likely to get hit in the turret than a vehicle with a manned turret with a comparable gun.

Most of that "turret" is not turret, which is substantially smaller. Also is it really penetrable by autocannons in SB?..

 

 

Most of the T-90s turret seen from the front is also not turret. And, yes, it's penetrateable by autocannons (30x173mm APFSDS-T) from sides and rear from moderate distances. Is this really such a surprise?

[GARGEAN]

Is this really such a surprise?

 

Kinda yes, considering real size of turret and that it has little to no internals aside from gun breech, which is... Well, smaller. Ofc it all can be empty space with 15mm outer shell, but who knows.

[GARGEAN]

On the M1 and Leopard, the primary sights have ballistic shield doors.

Only on them? And on no other tanks? Let's say... T-14?

[lastdingo]

1) What do you mean the turret blocks line of sight? The T-14's panoramic sight is on TOP of the turret, with a wired connection to the commander's screen. You either just place another one on top, willing to compromise on both sights having a certain dead zone when staring at each other, or just make a somewhat bigger module that contains two sights stacked vertically.

 

Or are you still stuck in the 80's where panoramic sight means non-electronic, optical periscopes?

Oh, boy. We talked about the vulnerability of those electronic components because of their exposure and you began writing about panoramic sights. Yes, of course did I assume you meant the ordinary ones, for what you wrote would have made even less sense otherwise. Yet more poorly protected electronics stuff is no backup to poorly protected electronics stuff worth talking about. A proper alternative has to not share systemic risks with the main subsystem.

2) For the effect of KETF, you don't really have a range limitation in theory. But in practice, its lower velocity creates a delay of several seconds between its impact and the main gun's impact, growing with the distance.

That delay is nowhere near "seconds". You should check the basics of external ballistics.

Today it's a non-issue. But in a few years it will matter. Part of the Carmel and OMFV effort is to create AI-based and sensor fused target identification, for whom those seconds will be enough to locate the target, scan it, ID it, and perhaps even return fire prior to the enemy's shell's impact. As a parallel and independent process it could deploy some countermeasures.

The current engagement sequence from target spotting till shot is about seven seconds with a good crew. You're behind the curve by decades.

For the shooter it can mean that today it will work, but in a few years it might have to expect return fire before it can get a proper look at the target, preventing it from knowing whether it scored a hit.

Doesn't matter. A good IFV commander would likely pop a multispectral smoke wall right with the first salvo (kinda what you wrote earlier) if he sees an opportunity for reaching concealment and either withdrawing or using another firing position. There's enough confidence in the gun's ability to land hits where aimed from practice, and there would hardly be any directly observable effects anyway. The pellets don't have phosphorous coating or similar as impact indicator.

.

[lastdingo]

 

On the M1 and Leopard, the primary sights have ballistic shield doors.

Only on them? And on no other tanks? Let's say... T-14?

 

T-14 is kinda prototype, so we cannot know. We can know that such protection would rather be rated against bullets and fragmentation than against 25+ mm APFSDS.

[Ssnake]

I would consider it prudent to protect it at least against medium caliber APFSDS (at least at longer ranges, at least frontally). No matter how good your active protection system is, you need a certain amount of passive armor unless you're willing to throw away the whole gun assembly after every time that you receive a hit (that would be really stupid).

I can believe that military bureaucracies are systemically stupid as to not order a sufficient stock of replacement sensor modules, but I don't think that you would willingly forfeit protection against the most common threats with a combat platform that is supposed to close with and destroy the enemy. The MBT role that the Armata, too, is supposed to fulfill is "protected mobile precision firepower", and protection isn't limited to the crew capsule.

 

But sensor electronics on the outside must remain vulnerable, it's a functional consequence.

[GARGEAN]

T-14 is kinda prototype, so we cannot know.

 

​

Can't we?

[Chris Werb]

 

Is this really such a surprise?

 

Kinda yes, considering real size of turret and that it has little to no internals aside from gun breech, which is... Well, smaller. Ofc it all can be empty space with 15mm outer shell, but who knows.

 

 

It's a surprise that 30x173mm APFSDS-T can go through the side and rear of the turret? Size isn't the issue here, though it's clearly not small. I'd be surprised if it wouldn't penetrate the side and rear of the turret of any other vehicle in the sim.

[GARGEAN]

I would consider it prudent to protect it at least against medium caliber APFSDS (at least at longer ranges, at least frontally).

And I am still failing to see why is this not the case. If you hit mantlet - you will destroy breech. If you go farther to "cheeks" - you won't hit anything internal. How is that less protected than any other MBT turret face?

Frontal arc protection can be argued, but even then people are too willing to forget that there is barely anything besides breech inside turret. And that presumed turret size is somewhat bigger than just box around breech supposed to be.