I'm curious about how the latest operational versions of tanks like Leopard, Leclerc, Challenger, Type 10 and especially K2 Black Panther would fare against the latest operational versions of Abrams in a tank vs tank battle. Mobility, firepower, protection and logistical burden matter, but I think the decisive factor would be the quality of thermal sensors, fire control, C2 and whatever helps you spot the enemy first, given that whoever sees the enemy first will probably shoot first, and probably win.Also, would the results be different in mountainous or open terrain? I think the K2 would have an advantage in the mountains, as it was specifically designed for that purpose, while Abrams is more of an Eastern Europe oriented design.
>>64316068All of them lose to the M1A2 simply because they are too moral. They are too pussy to use tech thats environmentally hazardous.
>>64316068>mountainous terrainThis thing right here, not joking. Nork missiles in Ukraine have a proven NLOS top attack capability. IRL the Songun 916 would die to combined MLRS/Airpower but one on one in anything beside open terrain it would be a major threat. A problem for infantry as well because that is effectively a twin light mortar if they have an observer or drone.
>>64316448>Songun 916>Posts a 915BRB, punitive Sudoku
>>64316448That is a Chonma 216 or a variant more with extra armament. The Songun has T-72-like central driver hatch and a more western-like chassis profile (probably shared with the M2020)
>>64316467They (or whoever) call it a Songun 915, however i don't even think they are up to date on the random shit they make or what to call it. The lack of a good overhead image is really annoying. Who the hell makes a T-62 hull with a extra roadwheel but doesn't move the drivers position? Especially as they previously made a earlier hull that did move it? The bomb next to the driver is the biggest design flaw of the T-62/55. Weird detail: As far as anyone can tell the twin AGLs can't be independently targeted, the tiny bit of footage of it shows the AGLs moving in tandem with the main guns stabilizer which makes sense as neither the gunner or commander can use it due to it's position. So it is probably fixed with elevation controlled by a direct mechanical link to the main gun itself. Not a horrible idea, while the main gun is reloading the gunner can VOG the fuck out of the target or not waste HE on soft targets. I still can't tell if Kim playing C&C is a good or bad thing for their design process.
>>64316068I assume it come down to stuff like crew training and the specific tactical situation more than any capabilities of the tanks themselves, since the tanks all feature similar mobility, advanced sensors and cannons that can destroy each other in a single shot
>>64316522Nork tanks are like the not-bastard-son of the T-62B (Object 167M) in firepower, chassis and (probably) composite armor. Of course soviets cancelled it and kept making more T-62...The ammo next to the driver is wet in the T-62, that alone and the case makes those tanks safer than the newer tanks with autoloader or the cramped T-55.
>>64316467>probably shared with the M2020>*squints*Fucking rubber track flaps. Weird to see them doing so many random tank designs; when they came up with the VTT/323 they put alot of effort into making a pretty decent APC chassis then mass produced it. They should settle on a the best variant of a modernish hull they have and stop screwing around with it. Multiple turrets for older hulls is OK i guess since besides the 105th everything is still some form of something that is still recognizable as a T-62, the turret is really all you can work with there.
>>64316322>use tech thats environmentally hazardousAre you talking about depleted uranium rounds? Does that offer a significant practical advantage? >>64316448>>64316467>>64316462Thanks kim but thats not my question though.
>>64316545>since the tanks all feature similar mobility, advanced sensors and cannons that can destroy each other in a single shotI guess that's my real question, if that's uniformly true for all these tanks and none of them have a real edge.
>>64316550You can't do anything beyond wet storage for the stuff next to the driver although it has been pointed out a few times that if they ever had any interest in making a AC armed IFV or even heavy APC the space could be useful. In theory the ammo next to the driver and the ammo behind the fighting compartment take up enough space that if it didn't have a 115/125mm you could fit 4-6 more guys in there. If all it had was a AC controlled by the commander and a driver you could make it into a heavy APC/IFV. >>64316566>Thanks kim but thats not my question though.Technically by upgrading it in the last 40 years and having some sort innovation it is a 'western type' tank by default as is any modern PRC design. Those top attack missiles are a bitch if they have cover and we know from Ukraine they actually work.>>64316578Pretty much, i'm mentioning this specific Nork design since it is clearly meant to operate in congested terrain and/or from reverse slopes/cover/urban areas and minimize the whole getting hit first issue.
>>64316617If you use their late Koksan as a reference then they probably would reverse the gearbox to have a frontal engine, remove the thick plate now in the back and being able to completely modify the better placed crew compartment. Of course it would need move the wheels and torsion bars to balance the suspension, maybe rising the chassis in the process.
>>64316566>Are you talking about depleted uranium rounds? Does that offer a significant practical advantage?Yes, uranium penetrators are black magic. The difference between uranium and tungsten is as big as the difference between tungsten and steel.
>>64316448Shut up you fucking retarded pinko shill
Worth noting that given the absurd amount of optics, APS, sensors ect ect that tanks are getting put on them these days giving the gunner the ability to pepper a target with a hail of 30mm DP while reloading doesn't seem like a bad idea at all. Even if the main gun can't penetrate it they will probably retreat if enough sensors, sights ect get fucked up.>>64316650Koksans are a special case although quite relevant to your post: From everything anyone can tell about them it is a highly modified Tank chassis but has no conventional gearbox. The recoil and elevation system are combined with a hydraulic drive.If you look at where the exhaust vents are located and how it is set up there is a what looks like big hydraulic unit behind the cab under the barrel. It would be stupid to make everything like the recoil system, recoil spades, mini dozer blade, elevation ect be hydraulic and not do the same for the drive like a big excavator. They probably use a hydraulic unit from a big civilian excavator, that's how most TELs work. In theory a T-62 based troop carrying IFV could get rid of the engine entirely if they could find a hydraulic engine/sending unit that would fit next to the driver who will really hate Kim if he doesn't spring for air conditioning. Besides twin hydraulic drive units on either side of the rear it would be empty since the engine would be gone. At very best with the removal of the engine and turret it wouldn't have any difference in speed, hydralic drives are great for power but have practical limitations for speed which is why you see them on TELS (which is why all their tires can turn at once without tie rods BTW) and civil construction vehicles but not tanks.Oh, also rubber hoses full of oil that burn great.
>>64316703Hey, not a pinko! Retarded shill yes but championing a defacto National Socialist Absolute Monarchy is the exact opposite of being a pinko. Insult me all you want, just get the terminology right.
>>64316691Not really, at the same muzzle energy they're the 'same', the difference is that DU needs less speed and it's less affected by the usual ~100 m/s velocity drop. Maybe it was different before the heat treatment developed by SK in the 1990s and that is common for modern WHA rods.>the plot is energy efficiency for a mono rod with V as parameter (and M = sqrt(2*E) )
>>64316737Also DU doesn't mushroom like most metals, it burns and flakes under pressure so as the meme says they 'self sharpen' not to mention filling anything they penetrate with a metal fire, they are defacto AP-I.
>>64316753> they are defacto AP-I.DU is a good match for a T-72, pun intended.
>>64316763Absolutely, i seem to recall a incident in the first Gulf war when a entrenched T-72 got hit through a berm and the round not only destroyed it but took out a second one behind it.
>>64316737The difference is that DU rounds can't take advantage of higher muzzle velocity because it would just shatter. That's the reason why DU rounds are heavier but slower compared to rounds based on tungsten alloys. That's is also the reason why railguns, if they see operational service, will use tungsten alloy and not DU.
>>64316737>he heat treatment developed by SK in the 1990s and that is common for modern WHA rods@Grok, explain this to me like I'm 5.
>>64319671Long rod penetrators work with shattering, they ablate during penetration, different materials have a different sweet points in ablation rate for that kind of rod design. But for other rod designs (like thinner segmented rods) or heterogeneous liners it works at high velocity, conventional mono-block penetrators don't work well beyond 2 km/s regardless if they're made out of DU or WHA, unless you want a huge hole/cratering and incendiary effect.
>>64319692They developed a heat treatment that makes a WHA rod to mimic the self-sharpening behavior of DU.Normally a ductile rod will mushroom its tip during impact and enlarge the hole, that is bad for penetration efficiency, so if the mushrooms has 'weak points' that limits its growth then the hole will narrower and deeper.
