Military Review

Medium tank based on BMP K21

17
Last summer at the international exhibition Eurosatory-2012 in France, the German company Rheinmetall presented its new project. In fact, it is a modernization of the Marder infantry fighting vehicle with the maximum possible bringing its combat characteristics to the level of the main combat tanks. It is assumed that such medium-sized and relatively cheap armored vehicles in the near future will interest a fairly wide range of customers. Such an average tank, as conceived by the authors of the project, will be of interest both to small and poor countries that need modern equipment with good capabilities, and to large states that already have their own modern armored forces. With regard to the latter, reasoning is as follows. In modern conditions, tanks very rarely fight with tanks, especially with equal characteristics. Therefore, to combat lightly armored vehicles or outdated tanks, you need a cheap and massive combat vehicle with good weapons, created on the basis of existing structures, for example, on the basis of an infantry fighting vehicle. The new Marder Medium MBT tank has not yet become the subject of a supply contract, but has attracted the attention of the military around the world.



Other armored vehicles became interested in the idea. At a recent IDEX-2013 exhibition in Abu Dhabi, a similar Korean-Belgian joint project was demonstrated for the first time. The companies Doosan DST (South Korea) and CMI Defense (Belgium) together conducted a deep modernization of the Korean infantry fighting vehicle K21. After all the design work, this machine acquired almost all the properties of a modern main tank. The new tank has not yet received any name of its own. It is expected that the tank based on the BMP K21 will compete with the German Marder Medium MBT and some other machines of a similar class, but originally created as a tank. At the same time, the Korean medium tank can not cope with the task assigned to it. The fact is that the infantry fighting vehicle K21 was created only in the two thousand years and, as a result, did not have time to become popular and popular. Therefore, the modernization of the existing fleet of vehicles, as in the case of a tank based on the "Marder", is not out of the question.

An interesting fact is that after a deep modernization, the armored vehicle retained its original combat weight of 25 tons. Removing the old BMP turret with the 40-mm automatic cannon, the assault seats and a number of auxiliary systems from the structure allowed saving weight almost equal to the mass of the Cockerill XC-8 turret gun. Thanks to this, it was possible to preserve the original chassis design, including the chassis and powerplant. The K21-based tank, like the BMP itself, is equipped with a Doosan D2840LXE diesel engine with horsepower 750. Thus, the specific power of the tank is approximately equal to 28-30 HP per ton of weight, which even slightly exceeds the upper limit of the optimal value of this parameter. The chassis has six road wheels with hydropneumatic suspension on board, as well as driving and steering wheels. The engine compartment is located in the front of the armored hull.





It is alleged that, after being converted into a tank, the former infantry fighting vehicle retained the ability to swim. It should be recalled that the original K21 is capable of crossing water obstacles by swimming only after opening and filling special cylinders on the sides of the hull. In the stowed position, they are located under the machine bulwarks. This possibility of a new tank raises certain doubts. Rubber cylinders can be punched even from small weaponsThat pretty quickly send the car to the bottom. Obviously, her own buoyancy leaves much to be desired. In addition, with such characteristics, a tank in the water can only fire from machine guns, which significantly reduces its combat capabilities.

As can be judged by the appearance of the medium tanks presented, they retained most of the original booking of the K21 infantry fighting vehicle. This means that the new tank has a fourth-level protection in accordance with the STANAG 4569 standard and, thus, is protected from 14,5-mm armor-piercing bullets. At the same time, the frontal projection protection withstands hitting at least 30-mm projectiles of automatic guns. Perhaps the construction of an average tank based on the K21 provides for the installation of additional booking modules that increase the level of protection.

The main difference between the new medium tank and the K21 infantry fighting vehicle is the Cockerill XC-8 twin-gun turret. This combat module is interesting because it can be equipped with various target equipment and allows you to install different weapons. So, for the new Korean-Belgian medium tank, two versions of the main armament are offered. At the request of the customer on the tower can be mounted smooth-bore guns-launchers caliber 105 or 120 millimeters. These high-pressure barrel guns are designed to use all available ammunition that complies with NATO standards. Both guns are equipped with automatic loaders, which reduced the crew to three people. Interestingly, due to the relatively small dimensions of the 105-mm guns and a fairly spacious turret, it was possible to bring the maximum elevation angle to 42 °. For most modern tanks, this is too big a corner, but it will increase the combat effectiveness of armored vehicles in urban environments. In addition, when shooting with a maximum elevation, the maximum range of shooting is increased to ten kilometers. The 120-mm gun does not have this capability, but thanks to its caliber it provides firepower at the level of modern main tanks.

Engineers from CMI Defense have also included Falarick guided missiles, developed jointly with the Ukrainian design bureau “Luch”, into the nomenclature of the new tank ammunition. These missiles are launched directly from the launcher and significantly increase the combat potential of the tank. It is worth noting, Falarick missiles are available in two versions, for use with 105-mm and 120-mm guns. Thus, regardless of the type of main armament, the Korean-Belgian tank carries a certain number of guided missiles. The stated armor penetration characteristics (at least 550 millimeters behind dynamic protection) allow the former infantry combat vehicle to effectively deal with some tanks. Additional armament of the new tank, apparently, includes at least one machine gun paired with a cannon. On the prototypes shown, an anti-aircraft machine gun and smoke grenade launchers were absent. Probably, they can be installed at the request of the customer.

In general, the new medium-sized Korean-Beli development tank is quite interesting and will undoubtedly attract the attention of the military of some countries. At the same time, despite his "origin", he is unlikely to be able to compete with the German tank based on the BMP Marder. The reason for this is the novelty of the original infantry fighting vehicle. Not a single country has a sufficiently large fleet of such infantry fighting vehicles, and the existing machines have not yet become outdated. Therefore, no one will be able to contact the Doosan DST and CMI Defense companies with an order to upgrade obsolete machines with a change in their class. Due to the relatively high fire characteristics, the new medium tank is quite capable of becoming a kind of replacement for full-fledged main tanks, which has a markedly lower cost.

So far, both the Korean-Belgian nameless tank, and the German Marder Medium MBT are purely exhibition prototypes. Potential buyers get acquainted with them, study the appearance and possibilities, and feel free to praise. Moreover, to date, both tanks, with all their advantages, have not been the subject of even preliminary negotiations on a future contract. It is possible that the new return to the idea of ​​a medium tank did not justify itself. But it cannot be excluded that a new serious trend is being born in tank building right now. Does it make sense to make from an infantry fighting vehicle an average mass tank with the main fire capabilities? Time and contracts will show.


On the materials of the sites:
http://army-guide.com/
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://janes.com/
http://armor.kiev.ua/
http://strangernn.livejournal.com/
Author:
17 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. kotdavin4i
    kotdavin4i 28 February 2013 09: 39
    +3
    Good morning dear. My opinion is that the game is not worth the candle, with the modern saturation of the battlefield with anti-tank weapons, armor withstanding 14.5 mm is ridiculous. Any old RPG for $ 200 will destroy this tank. Fighting against modern tanks is also rather weak. To carry out counter-terrorist operations as 30 mm gun + automatic grenade launcher more efficiently.
    1. Akim
      Akim 28 February 2013 10: 08
      +2
      kotdavin4i,
      This "tank" is not designed to fight in the front line. If there are TURs, then he fires from the maximum distance. And the large elevation angle of the gun makes a howitzer from it at the right time to support the infantry.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 28 February 2013 10: 37
        0
        Quote: Akim
        A large elevation angle of the gun makes him at the right time a howitzer to support the infantry.


        Here, not only is a corner needed, which, by the way, should be much larger for a howitzer. A variable charge is needed.
        1. Akim
          Akim 28 February 2013 11: 06
          +1
          Quote: Spade
          A variable charge is needed.

          And what modern howitzers (105-122 mm caliber) have cap-shaped loading?
          As for the corner - of course this is not howitzer, but it is a compromise with the ability to lead and good lay fire.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 28 February 2013 11: 57
            +2
            Quote: Akim
            And what modern howitzers (105-122 mm caliber) have cap-shaped loading?


            Modern is everything.
            Less modern-separate-shell loading, but still with a variable charge.
            1. Akim
              Akim 28 February 2013 13: 21
              +1
              Apparently the Americans do not know about this. Their M101 uses unitary shots. (Now it is not in the US Army. But not in NATO countries it is full).
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 28 February 2013 14: 49
                +1
                To begin with, the instrument of 41 years of adoption is very difficult to call modern.
                Well, about loading: only the version installed on the "Sherman" was unitary
                Towed - only separate-liner. Like this one in the video. 1: 06- the third fighter on the left inserts the shell into the sleeve, which is held by the fourth on the left.
                1. Akim
                  Akim 28 February 2013 15: 02
                  0
                  Quote: Spade

                  To begin with, the instrument of 41 years of adoption is very difficult to call modern.

                  Waited for this comment. Well, M119 - you would not call it "old lady" ?. It can use both unitary shells and r / g loading. We do not know what kind of ammunition will go to this "tank". A larger elevation angle for a 49 cal cannon. probably a bit too much.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 28 February 2013 16: 28
                    +1
                    I would also expect such a comment if I had written some M-30 in modern ones.

                    What nomenclature we know. A full automatic loading system for howitzers is only possible with modular charges. And it is impossible to match them with 105 mm tank ammunition.
                    1. Akim
                      Akim 28 February 2013 16: 43
                      +1
                      Quote: Spade
                      A full automatic loading system for howitzers is only possible with modular charges.

                      I would not be so categorical. First, we do not know what device this AZ is. The fact that it is of the conveyor type does not say anything yet. Secondly, if the information is taken from foreign sources (and I doubt that the author himself saw this tower), then they almost all call an automatic loader. Even the mechanized laying of "Msty-S" 6ETs19.,
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 28 February 2013 16: 59
                        -1
                        And I would. Because an automaton capable of pulling out the required number of gunpowder bundles from charges has not yet been invented.

                        In 2C19, only shells are charged automatically.
                      2. Akim
                        Akim 28 February 2013 17: 06
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        In 2C19, only shells are charged automatically.

                        I know that. Have you seen the automatic loader of the Belgian tower? Or do you take everything that is written at face value?
            2. bask
              bask 28 February 2013 17: 38
              0
              Quote: Spade
              Less modern - separate-shell loading, but still with a variable charge

              In the USSR, back in the 70s, it was developed. A whole family of self-propelled guns and self-propelled mortars on the GM GM 123 .. ,, all with separate-shell loading., Acacia ,, Geocind ,, Tulip ,, It’s a pity that 122 mm self-propelled guns, Carnation was on the MT-MB GSh. And so there would be a single GSh chassis, for all self-propelled guns. And the 120 mm Host can also be mounted on this GSH.
        2. bask
          bask 28 February 2013 18: 02
          0
          Quote:] BUT in the USSR there were GS projects weighing up to 25 tons and carrying capacities up to 12 tons
          MT-S, MT-SM. On their basis it was possible to build BMP, BTR-S and SR.Tank [/ quote

          [img] http://rcforum.su/attachment.php?attachmentid=540171&stc=1&thumb=1&d=130590
          5554 [/ img]

          [img] http://rcforum.su/attachment.php?attachmentid=539778&stc=1&thumb=1&d=130575
          3131 [/ img]

          [img]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRl9qWb04wzNYNrI_y1ZYSus9BCP2e_i1RT
          exVfDffLg7QGGFLL [/ img]
      2. bask
        bask 28 February 2013 17: 52
        -1
        Quote: Akim
        nk "is not intended for fighting in the front line. If there are TURs, then he fires from the maximum distance.

        First of all, for a tank based on BMP, there should be a single main gun. The weapons in the USSR have always been at the highest level. But BMP 1,2, and even BMP-3. I believe that the main guns for these BMPs were not completely selected. Everything was assigned to the purchase of armored vehicles at the expense of security.
        BUT in the USSR there were GS projects weighing up to 25 tons and carrying capacities up to 12 tons
        MT-S, MT-SM. On their basis it was possible to build BMP, BTR-S and SR.Tanki.
      3. bask
        bask 28 February 2013 18: 14
        +1
        Quote: Akim
        This "tank" is not designed to fight in the front

        To make sr.tank nuzhno adequate GS in the USSR. there were such chassis, it is MT-S MT-SM.

        1. Kars
          Kars 28 February 2013 18: 21
          +3
          Why don’t you need a medium tank? And if you need something than the 55th you displeased?
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 28 February 2013 10: 35
      0
      The problem is solved by installing an active protection complex.

      The real problem of "medium tanks" is different - in increasing the power of small-caliber guns of light vehicles.
      1. bask
        bask 28 February 2013 17: 19
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        I have a problem with "medium tanks" in the other - in increasing the power of small-caliber guns of light equipment.

        You wrote that the BMP-3, in fact, is a tank. With the ability to transport troops.
        I think the real problem is, in the absence of., In sufficient numbers in the troops.
        But this equipment is already out of date, we are waiting for Kurganets., Optimal on the promising infantry fighting vehicle was a 57 mm S-60 gun
    3. viruskvartirus
      viruskvartirus 28 February 2013 12: 41
      0
      Here's to you right away "According to TARDEC, the US Army should rethink the doctrine in order to reduce the weight of equipment" http://topwar.ru/24729-po-mneniyu-tardec-armiya-ssha-dolzhna-pereosmyslit-doktri
      nu-chtoby-snizit-ves-tehniki.html
      1. Kars
        Kars 28 February 2013 19: 54
        0
        Abramsy stocked, that the US military-industrial complex all sorts
        Quote: viruskvartirus
        TARDEC

        finds something to push through a new feature.
    4. LION
      LION 28 February 2013 20: 49
      0
      PT 76 - taxis. The main thing is where and how to use this tank. His place is Asia. With jungle, rivers and rugged terrain. Berlin will not take. Phnom Penh and Ho Chi Minh City for sure. There is nothing new. The further development of amphibious and medium tanks was invented in the USSR in the 50s.
  2. Brummbar
    Brummbar 28 February 2013 10: 14
    +2
    Yes, this is not a tank, rather a self-propelled gun like our "Sprut". But unlike this thing in "Octopus" there is a sense of this is the Airborne Forces.
    1. Akim
      Akim 28 February 2013 10: 34
      +2
      Quote: Brummbar
      Yes, this is not a tank, rather self-propelled

      This is something like a "fire support vehicle".
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 28 February 2013 10: 38
      0
      To be more correct, "Octopus" is a tank destroyer.
    3. PLO
      PLO 28 February 2013 11: 52
      0
      But unlike this thing in "Octopus" there is a sense of this is the Airborne Forces.

      in fact, the Octopus also had to replace the towed anti-tank Rapiers in modern motorized rifle brigades.

      even the states were approved, but the supply of octopus stalled for the same reason unified platforms. generally expect Kurgan with a 125mm gun
    4. bask
      bask 28 February 2013 17: 01
      0
      Quote: Brummbar
      not a tank, rather a self-propelled gun like our Octopus. But unlike this thing in the "Octopus" it makes sense this is the Airborne Forces

      The point is to make a whole, assault gun, self-propelled guns, tank destroyer, BMP, BTR-S, on a single. Tracked platform. Weights from 25 to 30 tons. With a quick change of combat modules.
  3. Forest
    Forest 28 February 2013 10: 39
    0
    For the African theater of operations will do.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 28 February 2013 10: 40
      +1
      For Africa, a car based on the BMP-1 is needed
      1. Forest
        Forest 28 February 2013 15: 47
        0
        BMP-1 is too cheap - you can't put African "partners" on a credit collar)
      2. bask
        bask 28 February 2013 16: 51
        +1
        Quote: Spade

        For Africa, a car based on the BMP-1 is needed

        For Africa. It depends on which part of it. North Africa sands, tracked track. South African Republic on a wheeled track. They fought in Angola. South African sheep. Only armored personnel carrier ,, Ratel ,, tank destroyer. ,, Ruikat ,,

        By 94, there were only 170 of them in the South African army.
        And the armored personnel carrier ,, Ratel, with a 90 mm gun
        It all depends on the tactics of using armored vehicles.
        Light brigades with ,, Boomerang ,, and medium ,, Kurganets, in the RA will still be
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 28 February 2013 17: 02
          +1
          It's not about wheels or tracks, it's about the prevalence of old BMP-BTRs that can become the basis for such a tank.
          1. bask
            bask 28 February 2013 23: 26
            +1
            Quote: Spade

            It's not about wheels or tracks, it's about the prevalence of old BMP-BTRs that can become the basis for such a tank.

            Options for upgrading BMP-1,2. Slovakia. 120mm mortar.


            On the old case. BMP 1,2. You can install any weapons and equipment. Restriction only in mass.
  4. PDM80
    PDM80 28 February 2013 11: 21
    0
    Ours have already created BMD4 which is an order of magnitude better in armament + the ability to land and float, armor is not so hot, but there is something to work