P'okp'ung-ho Storm Tiger vs. K2 Black Panther

Bleipriester

Bleipriester

New Member
If a P'okp'ung-ho and a K2 Black Panther fight, which tank would be the winner?


The P'okp'ung-ho Storm Tiger:
I read many about the P'okp'ung-ho Storm Tiger. Many thinks, its a modernized variant of T-62 or T-72. But it is more likely, that the P'okp'ung-ho is a North Korean made variant of the T-90:
31372733.jpg
t90o.jpg


Kim Jong Il visited a T-90 factory in Russia in 2001 and it is believed, he got a present from the Russians: A T-90.
There is nothing known about the hull, but it could be a T-90 like one. The cannon is a 115 or 120 mm cannon, which is rated "newly" by South Korean experts. It has a 12-cylinder diesel motor with 1000 - 1100 PS. Its weight is about 45 tons and it has a operational range of 230 miles / 370 km. Its top speed is 37 miles/h. It has NBS protection, night view, a computerized Fire Control System based on British technology, onboard laser rangefinder, infrared sensor and searchlight.
Three soldiers are working in a P'okp'ung-ho: Commander, gunner and driver - gun loading by a automatic loader mechanism.
See some P'okp'ung-ho Storm Tiger tanks here:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tCgmB4onIw&feature=related"]YouTube - KCTV (DPRK Military Parade 65th Anniversary of the WPK) 5/7[/ame]


The K2 Black Panther:
93980491.jpg


Wikipedia gives a good overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_Black_Panther
 
Last edited:
S Korea has considerably more technical expertise and infrastructure than N Korea. There are a lot of areas to consider in a tank vs tank battle but if one has just a 5% edge in most things...that can become a total rout. I don't know if N Korea has the "stuff" to do a really MODERN tank,unless the Chinese pretty much supplied all the heavy machinery,engineering,electronics etc. Even then,preciscion, quality control and such cam be a huge issue given the complexities. I'm not sure the Chinese would even WANT NK to have a real world class tank...let alone subsidize it. Were the Chinese basically donating a "tank Kit" to N Korea...that would be some pretty nutso politics.
Then....again...where does N Korea get the means to put together a modern tank?

I'd suspect the S Korean tank,as new as it is...is pretty state of the art in some regards where the N K tank more likely is a mixed bag,in some ways almost the level of a T-90,in others maybe not even much better than a T-72.
 
The K-2 is a modern tank. The fact that it's the most expensive tank in the world ($1 billion pricetag)
From what I've read, it's basically a hybrid of all the best tanks in the world. The Merkava, Abrams, Leopard, etc... What chance would an NK-made tank would have against it?
 
old woody said:
Then....again...where does N Korea get the means to put together a modern tank?
Click to expand...
The North Koreans build their own factories. They have some tank-factories across the land, but the entire capacity of all factories together is about maximal 200 tanks annual.


Korean Seaboy said:
The K-2 is a modern tank. The fact that it's the most expensive tank in the world ($1 billion pricetag)
From what I've read, it's basically a hybrid of all the best tanks in the world. The Merkava, Abrams, Leopard, etc... What chance would an NK-made tank would have against it?
Click to expand...
A Leopard costs about 8 million Euro. The K2 is more expensive, but 1 billion is much to high. The K2 is also the best tank in the world, I think. It is armed with the L/55 Rheinmetall cannon, like the Leopard 2A6
But when I see the other North Korean developments, I have the doubt, the Storm Tiger must be a strong tank.
 
Bleipriester said:
The North Koreans build their own factories. They have some tank-factories across the land, but the entire capacity of all factories together is about maximal 200 tanks annual.



A Leopard costs about 8 million Euro. The K2 is more expensive, but 1 billion is much to high. The K2 is also the best tank in the world, I think. It is armed with the L/55 Rheinmetall cannon, like the Leopard 2A6
But when I see the other North Korean developments, I have the doubt, the Storm Tiger must be a strong tank.
Click to expand...


Sure it may be a strong tank theoretically, but it would probably be worthless in battle.
Sorry, I made a mistake. I saw the Wikipedia article on the K2 about a few months earlier and I mistook 1 billion won for 1 billion dollars. Sorry. Anyways, it is indeed the most expensive tank in the world. If you look closely and compare the two, there's no doubt the K2 would easily take 5 Storm Tigers and come without a scratch. Also, the K2 was specially adapted for mountain terrain, considering that 70% of Korean terrain is mountainous, it would be safe to assume that the K2 would be much better than the Storm Tiger
 
Having a bunch of any tanks has one major concern, I think that the trues strength armor cannot be capitalized upon unless the long and busy supply lines of armor units ahead of said lines are protected, lose those and any tank no matter how expensive or tech savvy is useless, on either side.

As also it depends how the tanks are used I guess, how does NK use it's Storm Kittens?(forgot the exact cat, panther or tiger idk) Do they even have one on board targeting computer? Are the using Soviet mass armor tactics?

I don't have the experience or military training to answer these questions just guesstimating.

Oh one last question, does the K2 have a turbine aviation based engine? And most importantly did NK iron out all the transmission problems experienced by early T 90s in harsh climates?
 
Yossarian said:
Having a bunch of any tanks has one major concern, I think that the trues strength armor cannot be capitalized upon unless the long and busy supply lines of armor units ahead of said lines are protected, lose those and any tank no matter how expensive or tech savvy is useless, on either side.

As also it depends how the tanks are used I guess, how does NK use it's Storm Kittens?(forgot the exact cat, panther or tiger idk) Do they even have one on board targeting computer? Are the using Soviet mass armor tactics?

I don't have the experience or military training to answer these questions just guesstimating.

Oh one last question, does the K2 have a turbine aviation based engine? And most importantly did NK iron out all the transmission problems experienced by early T 90s in harsh climates?
Click to expand...


Considering NK technology, infrastructure, and financial status, they probably won't have on board targeting computers, use mass armor tactics, and won't iron out all the transmission problems. The weather in Korean peninsula is not very harsh compared to Siberia or Russia
 
Not sure but South Korea tends to swear by the diesel engine so the K-2 probably has it as well.
The gas turbine is a logistical nightmare.
 
A Can of Man said:
Not sure but South Korea tends to swear by the diesel engine so the K-2 probably has it as well.
The gas turbine is a logistical nightmare.
Click to expand...
Indeed, thats why the Leo always wins out on the Abrams in neutral tests: Almost equal in mission performance, but way ahead in maintenance, ready hours and environments-where-it-can-be-used. Noisier (though this has been mitigated by silencers by now 2A6) but less consuming (3x less for the Leo, though this also has been mitigated lately from the Abrams side through aux aggregate). Leo has more autonomy and higher velocity with same firing accuracy (not that it matters today, both were developed for a Cold War tank armys clash scenario).

Next, IR signature of the diesel is way lower than the turbine one (way so: 1000F for the turbine, 320F for the Diesel).

#3, engine heat limits the Abrams in supporting urban operations: Unlike the leo, where inf goes close-by and even communicates through a "telephone" ewith the tankers inside, the Abrams blows out 1000F degree heat from its rear, making it impossible for infantrymen to follow behind or ride on top. Since the US military has recognized the need to prepare for urban warfare, it needs to recognize this problem (and has, see fas.org).

4. Price: A gas turbine costs about 4x the diesel engine, spare parts also double. the Abrams gas turbine is expensive to maintain and replace. The US Army devotes 25% of its annual maintenance budget for all ground combat systems to Abrams gas turbine engines, and another 25% to the rest of the tanks in stock.

Actually, the Aussies went the right way: Abrams with a Diesel!

The Abrams and the Leopard 2 are identical in many ways. Indeed, both tanks began in a joint US and West German 3rd generation tank program called The MBT-70. Most of the development for both was generated during this time. Eventually the international team broke up, but not after a great amount of technology was invented and shared and both tanks continue to showcase it. The tanks have evolved, but many parts of the both remain identical. The most obvious example is that they both use the same Rheinmetall cannon and turret design. -snip-

A very good way to evaluate the success of a design is to view its export sales. The Leopard 2 is by far the most popular Western tank in the world and is probably the machine I would chose if I were to supply an army. It has many of the best features shared by the Abrams, but not the gas turbine engine that has caused supply and maintenance problems. In other words it has many benefits, but it is more cost effective. The list of countries that use it is long...it is all but NATO's standard tank.
Click to expand...

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=51901
http://www.militar.org.ua/foro/m1-abrams-vs-leopard-2-t7386-405.html
http://battletracker.com/forum/othe...german-leopard-2-a6-vs-american-m1-a2-abrams/

Rattler
 
There are obvously certain advantages still with having aviation powerplants in Tanks, or it would not have been pursued. Doesn't Russia have an aviation powerplant for some T 90s?

Just takes a helleva large amount of logistics from what I can piece together.
 
I'll go with the diesel.
Logistics, reliability and interoperability with troops is more important than being able to spring out from behind cover a bit faster than a tank with a diesel engine.
 
Korean Seaboy said:
Sure it may be a strong tank theoretically, but it would probably be worthless in battle.
Sorry, I made a mistake. I saw the Wikipedia article on the K2 about a few months earlier and I mistook 1 billion won for 1 billion dollars. Sorry. Anyways, it is indeed the most expensive tank in the world. If you look closely and compare the two, there's no doubt the K2 would easily take 5 Storm Tigers and come without a scratch. Also, the K2 was specially adapted for mountain terrain, considering that 70% of Korean terrain is mountainous, it would be safe to assume that the K2 would be much better than the Storm Tiger
Click to expand...

I thought, why should NK develop a new tank, when it is not better, than these, they have already. Would the few capacities and time, NK has, not better be invested in different things?
And watch the Unha 2 Missile, it can be used as satellite-transporter like the Mariane 2, but it also can be used as warhead carrier up to 7000 km. Why should they be able to develop this, but not a proper tank?



rattler said:
Indeed, thats why the Leo always wins out on the Abrams in neutral tests: Almost equal in mission performance, but way ahead in maintenance, ready hours and environments-where-it-can-be-used. Noisier (though this has been mitigated by silencers by now 2A6) but less consuming (3x less for the Leo, though this also has been mitigated lately from the Abrams side through aux aggregate). Leo has more autonomy and higher velocity with same firing accuracy (not that it matters today, both were developed for a Cold War tank armys clash scenario).

Next, IR signature of the diesel is way lower than the turbine one (way so: 1000F for the turbine, 320F for the Diesel).

#3, engine heat limits the Abrams in supporting urban operations: Unlike the leo, where inf goes close-by and even communicates through a "telephone" ewith the tankers inside, the Abrams blows out 1000F degree heat from its rear, making it impossible for infantrymen to follow behind or ride on top. Since the US military has recognized the need to prepare for urban warfare, it needs to recognize this problem (and has, see fas.org).

4. Price: A gas turbine costs about 4x the diesel engine, spare parts also double. the Abrams gas turbine is expensive to maintain and replace. The US Army devotes 25% of its annual maintenance budget for all ground combat systems to Abrams gas turbine engines, and another 25% to the rest of the tanks in stock.

Actually, the Aussies went the right way: Abrams with a Diesel!



http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=51901
http://www.militar.org.ua/foro/m1-abrams-vs-leopard-2-t7386-405.html
http://battletracker.com/forum/othe...german-leopard-2-a6-vs-american-m1-a2-abrams/

Rattler
Click to expand...


I think, the turbine is a good idea. If the Abrams would not be limited to 72 km/h, the turbine could bring it up to 100 km/h. Evey instep of the turbine can be restored like the entire tank, that is the big advantage of the Abrams M1 tank. Maybe a diesel would be more useful, if you have a small net of maintenance, but the US do not have a small net.
 
Never underestimate someones gear. anyway storm tigers wouldn't engage k2 face on. i think NK in case of war will just burn down SK in 2 hours. why have superb tanks if in 2 hours 50% of your country is obliterated?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top