Korean K1A1 MBT

Looks like a smaller version of the Abrams to me, but ...

Check it out :

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land ... 88-mbt.htm

 

I see what you mean!

The only difference I can spot is an angular glacis rather than a curved one.
Were there any American advisors on the design team?

Nice tank!

 

As far as I know the US gave alot of information about the Abrams tank, it the A1 also uses the same gun as the M1a1/a2 tanks as you can clearly see this way you can also clearly see that the frontal armor is much tinner than that of the Abrams.

 

I assume we are talking south korea here, not the lovely north. :lol:

I suppose the actual design means little as it's obvious to observers. How much electronics/controls was shared though? I assume that this does not have any DPU armour either?

FNG

 

Apparently the armour is 4-inch aluminium... :-?

 

100mm aluminium?

I hope the other side doesn't have anything more modern than a mark III panzer!

Nice and light though

FNG

 

It does have aluminum armor however it is listed as having composite armor also so it may have an aluminum base armor with composite overlay or some similar variation. It is about 20 tons lighter than an Abrams and the US isn't likely to share it's composite armor recipe with S. Korea so it's unknown what kind of composite armor it has.

 

And think about it's most possible enemy: North Korean T-55s or T-72. Guess those are easy prey for it.

 

You forget the leathal anti-tank rockets, gun etc...

 

I'd have thought a T-72 would put holes through the tank. I would have thought a ww2 88mm would.

FNG

 

According to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm

125-mm APFSDS-T, BM-42M Armor Penetration (mm) 590-630 at 2,000 meters

125-mm HEAT-MP, BK-29M Armor Penetration (mm) 650-750 at 3000 meters

Even the old 88 did 80mm at 2000m!

One hopes that behind that aluminium front is a steel composite!

FNG

 

There must be some kind of special armor behind it, or it is bullshit that it has aluminium armor...

 

no, it sounds about right. The M1 is around 60 to 70 tones where as this thing is around 53 tons. To save that much on the weight, which presumably is 99% engine and armour, you have to cut corners.

Aluminion instead of steel, thinner armour.

FNG

 

Well, it does say 'aluminium alloy', so my guess is a relatively light armour that is pretty hard for its weight.
If that makes sense...

 

recycled coke cans :lol:

FNG

 

At last, a tank that the troops can describe as a 'tin can' without being slanderous! :lol:

 

The Leclerc is about 50 tons and doesn't have weak aluminium armor, aluminium is way to weak to be used in tanks, the YPR we got in The Netherlands (upgraded M113) as got aluminium armor and people that know alot about it say you are able to shoot trough it with a MG3 (=7,62mm) if you shoot long enough...

 

Actually you can punch huge dents in it....

let's start reading :

Its crew sits inside a four-inch thick aluminum alloy shell

and then by

Specifications: Armour Composite

maybe it's crew compartment is also armored?

Also this tank is somewhat smaller and it's height is lower wich obviously also saves weight (not even speaking of less protection...but smaller target)

It's gun the M68A1 105mm ---> same as M1

The K1A1 has a 120mm ---> M256 maybe? same as the M1A1???

It's engine is a license built version of a 1200Hp diesel --> same as Leopard

So you can say it's even more related with the Leopard.....

 

I still don't believe that it has aluminium armor :smok:

About that gun, if I look at the picture in the first post I see an M1 gun, its exactly the same, the only difference is that the turret frontal armor is far less than that of the Abrams, you can see that by looking at the start of the gun

 

Remember that Korea is not exactly "tank country"