K2 Black Panther

[David_Bowie]

Would you like to see this in-game?

• Yes
• No

History

In 1992, the South Korean Army initiated the development of the K2 Black Panther, responding to their need for a next-generation tank. The Ministry of National Defence organized a seminar, led by Dr. Eui-Hwan Kim, inviting experts from various countries to provide advice before the concept design phase.

The attendees included:

• Israel: General Israel Tal (Merkava 1/2/3)
• Japan: MHI engineer Hayashi Iwao (Type 74/Type 90)
• USA: General Dynamics engineer Philip W. Lett (M48/M60/M1)
• Sweden: Bofors engineer Sven Berge (Strv 74/Strv 103/UDES Project)
• United Kingdom: Professor Richard M. Ogorkiewicz, Imperial College London

Starting in July 1995, the Agency for Defense Development (ADD) conducted systematic conceptual research on the next-generation tank until December 1997. This involved determining the tank’s capabilities, performance, appearance, necessary technologies, development methods, and expected efficiency.

Overseas studies were conducted with the Ministry of National Defense’s permission, sending 7 individuals to the UK for a year of training.

Between November 1998 and December 2002, ADD developed numerous technologies and software for the next-generation tank, including the K2’s cannon, target tracker, APS, and autoloader.

Full-scale development commenced in 2003, and after four years, the first prototype emerged in 2007. In September 2008, it was declared combat-ready. Due to delays in developing a domestic powerpack, the German powerpack from the prototype (MTU MT883 Ka-501 engine and Renk HSWL 295 transmission) was used for the initial production in 2011.

In second productions, the K2 was equipped with a powerpack featuring a DV27K engine from Doosan Infracor (now HD Hyundai Infracor) and a Renk HSWL 295 transmission, which continued in the third production, including the K2GF exported to Poland.

Firepower

K2 tank is equipped with the CN08 120mm L/55 tank cannon as its primary weapon and the M60E2 as its coaxial machine gun. Additionally, it has a 12.7mm K6 machine gun mounted in the commander’s hatch for multipurpose use.

Spoiler

Main Gun: CN08 120mm/L55

CN08 120mm/L55 canon used by K2 was developed by Hyundai WIA and has a 744 MPa chamber pressure.

Ammunition used in K2 is as follows:

• K279 APFSDS

Muzzle velocity: 1760 m/s
Length: 998 mm
Weight: 21.3 kg
Material: Heavy alloy of Tungsten

• K27X APFSDS

Muzzle velocity: 1800 m/s
Length: 998 mm
Weight: 20 kg
Material: Heavy alloy of Tungsten

Note: There is very little information available about this ammunition, and the internet only known its a variant of the K279. The information of this ammunition is found in the paper titled “Pressure Analysis and Conceptual Design for Indoor Ballistic Test Range by Numerical Methods”.

• K280 HEAT-MP

Muzzle velocity: 1400 m/s
Length: 998 mm
Weight: 23 kg
Filler: Composition B, 1kg
Fuse: Direct/Proximity

• K287 TP-T

Following ammo list is for the KM256/CN03 120mm/L44 cannon used in the K1A1/K1A2

• K276 APFSDS

Muzzle velocity: 1700 m/s
Length: 973 mm
Weight: 19.7 kg
Material: Heavy alloy of Tungsten
Penetration: 650mm

• K277 HEAT-MP-T

Muzzle velocity: 1130 m/s
Length: 989 mm
Weight: 24.5 kg
Filler: Composition B, 2kg
Fuse: Direct
Penetration: 600mm

• K282 TP-T

Coaxial Machine Gun: M60E2

For the coaxial machine gun, the K2 uses the same M60E2 as the M1/K1 tank, and holds a total of 12000 rounds.

Crew Machine Gun: K6

K6 machine gun was developed based on the M2 machine gun. In the K2 tank, it is operated by the tank commander and holds a total of 5000 rounds.

• Muzzle velocity: 890 m/s
• RPM: 450-600
• Maximum range: 6800m

Gunner/Commander Sight

Gunner Sight:

• Day/Thermal Camera 4/15/30/60x (30/60x is electronic zoom)
• Gen 2 Thermal

Commander Sight:

• Direct optics 4/11x
• Day/Thermal Camera 4/13/25/60x (25/60x electronic zoom)
• Gen 2 Thermal

Elevation/Depression/Targeting Speed

• -5°/+20°

Note: Depression is 0° depression in a range of ±70° from rear center

• Traverse rate : 600 mil (33.75°/s)
• Elevation rate : 450 mil (25.3125°/s)

Protection

The basic structure of the K2 tank is made of MIL-12560H steel plates, and the composite armor is made of SiC, replacing the AlO3 used in the first-generation KSAP, to achieve higher protection. In addition, it is equipped with ERA, LWR, and MWR to achieve high survivability.

Spoiler

Protection of the K2 is capable of withstanding 120mm APFSDS rounds. This information is already well known from published videos and photos.

There has been a debate about whether K276 or K279 APFSDS was used in the test, but considering that the cannon used during the test was KM256/CN03, it can be concluded that K276 was used. This is because K279 cannot be used with KM256/CN03.

It is also capable enough to protect the RPG-7 from the side.

This information is also available on Samyang Comtech’s website, the manufacturer of the composite armor. The front can withstand 120mm APFSDS, while the sides offer protection against 30mm APDS in the crew compartment and 30mm AP in the non-crew compartment.

Note: 30mm APDS (MPDS) produced in Korea is the K164 designed for 30×173mm.

Hull can provide protection against mines with armor plates known as STANAG 4569 Level 2. Additionally, there is ongoing development and promotion of STANAG LEVEL 4 armor plates for export.

Turret Structures:

In the case of composite armor, it is structured as follows: the photo of the K2 below illustrates the composite armor with less insertions. When fully inserted, it will match the CAD image above.

For turrets, the frontal LOS is 917mm

As for the turret sides, it’s known to be 50mm due to photos taken in Poland, but it’s actually a bit thicker.

This photo only measures the thickness of the outer composite, which is 110mm thick when including the base structure and liner.

50 mm (composite) + 35 mm (RHA base structure) + 25 mm (Rubber liner) = 110 mm

Hull Structures

For hull, composite armor is only present on UFP, LFP does not have composite armor.

This can be seen in the armor structure of the prototype below:

Production version has a slightly different hull structure, but the basic is the same.

The photo taken in Poland indicates that the sideskirts’ thickness is 50mm, but this measurement is incorrect. In reality, the sideskirts extend to the sides and have a thickness of 65mm.

• ERA:

Based on the video, the K2’s ERA appeared superior to the latest Russian ERA technology. However, considering the video’s 2006 recording date, we should assume it outperformed Kontakt-5. South Korea had the chance to test Kontakt-5 when introducing the T-80U. Although Relikt also existed in 2006, it couldn’t be tested by the South Korean military. Therefore, we can assume it was more capable than Kontakt-5. Due to the ERA structure, protection against KE is notably lower, making it fair to say it’s equivalent against CE.

When fully loaded, ERA weights 1.6t, with a total of 230 pieces.

Smoke launcher

Smoke launchers are equipped with two KM255 and one SLS launcher, for a total of 18 smoke. Launchers have a 66mm caliber.

Laser Warning Receiver

Missile Warning Radar

Original plan was for MWR to be operate with KAPS, where MWR detects missiles and KAPS intercepts them. However, due to concerns about KAPS causing damage to infantry, KAPS was not equipped on production model, only MWR to be equipped.

Mobility

K2 tank has a 51t basic weight, 55t combat weight, 70km/h forward and 34km/h reverse top speed and can climb up to 31° slope.

Spoiler

Engine

• STX-MTU MT883 Ka-501

1500PS / 2,700 RPM

• HD Hyundai Infracor DV27K

1500PS / 2,700 RPM

Transmission

• Renk HSWL 295

Renk HSWL 295 has a 5 Forward/Reverse gear, but when equipped in a vehicle, it is limited to a 5 forward gear and 3 reverse gear.

In addition, a 3rd gear is available when manually shifting, allowing to reverse up to 34 km/h.

• S&T EST15K (Upcoming)

EST15K transmission has 6 forward gears and 3 reverse gears.

Hydropneumatic Suspension

K2 suspension is controlled by driver, with the following angles available:

• Forward -5°
• Backward +4°
• Left and right 4°

Interior

3 crew members are on board, and ammunition storage is located at the rear of the turret and the front left of the hull.

Spoiler

Simple infographic

Ammo Storage

K2 tank has 3 ammo racks:

• Autoloader (16 rounds)
• Hull ammo rack (23 rounds)
• Turret Cradles (1 rounds)
• Total: 40 rounds

For the autoloader, it stores 16 rounds and has a blow-off panel, similar to the M1 Abrams, to keep the crew safe after a hit. It has a 6 second maximum reload time.

• ‘형제의 나라’ 주력전차 움직이는 K기술…완제품으로 폴란드 찍고 “다음은 중동 정조준”

K2 전차가 타국의 여러 3.5세대 전차와 차별화된 기술 중 하나가 자동장전장치다. 이 장치는 초탄 발사 후 후속탄 발사까지 6초 미만의 시간이 걸리며, 분당 10발을 쏠 수 있다. 기존의 수동장전 방식의 전차는 숙련된 탄약수가 임무에 투입돼도 분당 7발을 넘기기 어려우며, 전투가 길어질 경우 피로로 인해 그 속도가 더욱 떨어질 수 있다.

Hull ammo storage stores 23 rounds, with 6 rounds per line, but the lowest line has 5 rounds. and hull ammo storage is protected by ERA.

1 round is stored behind the commander seat.

Fuel Tanks

Fuel tanks are located on the hull and under the turret.

In the prototype, the fuel tank has the following structure, which has been changed in the production version.

Prototype (FTR):

Production:

Sources

Spoiler

• [첨단국가의 초석, 방위산업] 세계수준의 명품, K2 흑표전차 ②

• 한국 전차 발달 과정

• 위풍당당 ‘흑표’…세계최강 차세대 전차 국내기술로 개발

• 차기전차 장착 소규모 MD<미사일방어체제> 개발

• 차기 전차엔진 국내 개발 착수

• 차기 전차용 자동변속기 개발

• 차기전차 동력장치 야전 운용 시험

• Vehicle transmission HSWL 295

• 방위산업용엔진 by STX

• 방위산업 by S&T Dynamics

• K2 전차 By Hyundai Rotem

• 전차포 by Hyundai WIA

• Poongsan Ammunition Explosives Catalog

• Pressure Analysis and Conceptual Design for Indoor Ballistic Test Range by Numerical Methods

• K1A1에 탑재되는 최신 열상장비 ‘KGPSⅡ’ , 헌터킬러 기능 본격 사용이 가능한 국산 전차조준경

• K2전차 포탑 최대속도 회전 시 심한 요동 및 소음 설계 개선 연구

• Zaskakujące informacje! Ppor. Kędziora mówi prawdę o czołgach z Korei

• 제278회 국회(정기회) 국방위원회회의록(임시회의록) 제9호

• ‘외국産 심장’단 흑표 11월 본격 양산

• 현대로템 기업홍보영상(팩트편)

• 현재 K2 전차 연료배치

• 궤도차량용 범용 디젤엔진 개발

• K2전차의 동력장치

• K1/K2 FTR/K2 차체 복합재 구획 형상 예상도

• 미래군 첨단무기/대전

• 방호연구실 by Samyang Comtech

[Apollo_1641]

I think the K2 is a popular vehicle, we all want to see it.

How and where to implement it however… is controversial to say the least.

[Kingtiez]

+1, I’m looking forward to seeing this one in a United Korean tech tree.

[DoubleDrizzle]

I know this opinion is politically fraught, but for the game of War Thunder, it seems that a Korean sub-tree belongs in Japan. Regionally this makes more sense than putting it in the U.S. tree. Also, for the sake of gameplay, it fills out the top ranks of a nation that desperately needs more options. Eventually the K2 could also be placed in a Polish/Turkish sub-tree, but I think it makes sense to introduce the Korean K2 before the exports.

[roaccutane]

It is not correct to make South Korea a Japanese subtree

• Did they purchase and use military equipment with each other? : No
• Have they ever fought for each other? : No
• Do they have military cooperation? : No
• Are they military alliances? : No

If there’s no country in Warthunder to locate the k2 tank, it’s a good idea not to add it

[Arctic-Fox]

I think the main idea behind it being a Japanese sub-tree is simply because of Japanese occupation that ended after WW2, an occupation that lasted 35 years
But obviously adding it as a sub-tree based on this would be incredibly problematic for some people
Their relationship has been improving since than, even military wise but there’s still a few issues in some places

Obviously there is also the similiar deal with GB having SA as a sub-tree but difference there is that GB actually were involved in tank production and also have good relationships after SA became independent

Eitherway, pretty sure Thailand was passed for consideration as a potential sub-tree for Japan so SK is out of the picture here eitherway

Edit:

Thailand sub-tree : Ground tree

poll [image] Thai Ground Tech Tree [image] [image] Hello everyone We have already talked about aircraft. Let’s talk about the Ground Force branch. For this topic, it is a discussion for the Thai Ground tree branch in Japan. And brought to make suggestions and proposed as a sub-tree for everyone to read again. and will start presenting as follows. [image] Royal thai army cavalry badge since before 1932 - present The concept of merging the Thai ground sub-trees in Japan. Since 1930, the…

Also in air, naval and heli

[DiamondLag]

@roaccutane

Do they have military cooperation? : No

Yes they do. GSOMIA is worth pointing to.

@roaccutane

Are they military alliances? : No

Yes, they currently are under the recent “American-Japanese-Korean trilateral pact”

This pact also includes cooperation and exercises between the tree partners.

@roaccutane

If there’s no country in Warthunder to locate the k2 tank, it’s a good idea not to add it

I mean, all things considered there are quite a few places they could add it.

[지저스 크라이스트 슈퍼스타]

@Arctic-Fox

I think the main idea behind it being a Japanese sub-tree is simply because of Japanese occupation that ended after WW2, an occupation that lasted 35 years

Exactly same logic can be applied to USA, which was an american colony of UK. The case of France under the dominaiton of Germany is also similar. Occupation shouldn’t be a base concept of sub-tree.

[지저스 크라이스트 슈퍼스타]

@DiamondLag

Yes they do. GSOMIA is worth pointing to.

roaccutane:

I agree with it, Korea and Japan are having some kind of military coorperation.

@DiamondLag

Yes, they currently are under the recent “American-Japanese-Korean trilateral pact”

This pact is far from alliance like NATO, as there is no article about forced military intervention. There is similar pact even between Korea and Russia.

Overall, military relationship between Korea and Japan is currently developing, but not that strong thing such as NATO.
Considering the variety of new vehicles, and little technological connection, I think independent SK or united Korea tree is most appropriate.

[DiamondLag]

@예수

This pact is far from alliance like NATO, as there is no article about forced military intervention.

Well, technically speaking Nato also does not have a clause for forced military intervention, only that allies take steps they deem necessary to assist the ally.

In effect for NATO this is supposed to be forced military intervention, tho technically isnt.

@예수

Overall, military relationship between Korea and Japan is currently developing, but not that strong thing such as NATO.
Considering the variety of new vehicles, and little technological connection, I think independent SK or united Korea tree is most appropriate.

Yeah i dont think Korea is the most likely contender for Japan, but i don’t think it has any massive hinderances that would stop it. For which my only consideration is for the most part: "how much DDOS will this cause? ".

I think some other country comboes with Korea would be nice. Be it Vietnam-Korea, Poland-Korea or many other options.

[지저스 크라이스트 슈퍼스타]

@DiamondLag

Well, technically speaking Nato also does not have a clause for forced military intervention, only that allies take steps they deem necessary to assist the ally.

You can say that technically, but the fact is true that Korea-Japan relationship is much lower than that of NATO.

@DiamondLag

Yeah i dont think Korea is the most likely contender for Japan, but i don’t think it has any massive hinderances that would stop it. For which my only consideration is for the most part: "how much DDOS will this cause? ".

Yeah I can’t deny that there will be a massive amount of DDOS…(definitely not from me)
When it comes to combined tree, I think some kind of relationship is needed, which can be ethnical, historical, technological etc…
That’s why I think united Korea is a good option.

[DiamondLag]

@예수

Yeah I can’t deny that there will be a massive amount of DDOS…

Honestly, in comparison to other additions, i feel like this sandwich will have a negligable negative response.

@예수

When it comes to combined tree, I think some kind of relationship is needed, which can be ethnical, historical, technological etc…

I think this limits ones self too much. One should be relatively open about what nation pairings work to make a nicely themed and interesting tree to play.

[지저스 크라이스트 슈퍼스타]

@DiamondLag

Honestly, in comparison to other additions, i feel like this sandwich will have a negligable negative response.

Well, considering player population, I don’t think like that.

@DiamondLag

I think this limits ones self too much. One should be relatively open about what nation pairings work to make a nicely themed and interesting tree to play.

Actually, I also agree with that. In case of Wargame : Red Dragon, Korea-Japan joint corps is playable, and there is not much opposite opinion about it. However, important thing is that in WRD, it is possible to play Korea and Japan independently, so player can freely choose alliance. When it comes to Warthunder tree system, it is hard to make equal nation pairings now. Whole tree system should be renewed to achieve that.

[Rileyy3437]

+1

This is an incredibly well researched and detailed suggestion, very informative about my favourite MBT.

Would be great to see as part of a United Korean Tech Tree.

[RedentAlmeida]

K2 panther is a good tank that I would like to see on WT but it puzzzles me where should be allocated, which sub-tree or even a south korean new tech tree?

[Maccya00]

I think the South Korean tree should be a tree that starts at rank IV like the Israeli tree, not a sub-tree of some other country.
K2 Black Panther is an attractive MBT.
I would like to see him in WarThunder .

[SaabGripen]

@DiamondLag

Yes they do. GSOMIA is worth pointing to.

Here’s another meaningless argument after “They did joint training together”!

You seem to think that GSOMIA is a great scale agreement, on the level of an alliance treaty, but that is not the case. GSOMIA is merely an agreement to exchange mutual information and protect information obtained from each other. In particular, the GSOMIA relationship between Korea and Japan was terminated in 2019.

Currently, there are about 20 to 30 countries with which Korea has signed GSOMIA! In addition, Korea has agreements similar to GSOMIA with more than 10 countries. Below is a list that I found in less than a minute through the Ministry of Government Legislation’s treaty search.

• USA(대한민국 정부와 미합중국 정부간의 군사비밀보호에 관한 보안협정)
• Canada(대한민국 정부와 캐나다 정부간의 군사비밀정보의 교환 및 보호에 관한 협정)
• France(대한민국 정부와 프랑스공화국 정부간의 군사 및 군비협력분야에서 교환되는 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• Russia(대한민국 정부와 러시아연방 정부간의 군사비밀정보의 상호보호에 관한 협정)
• Ukraine(대한민국 정부와 우크라이나 정부간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• UAE(대한민국 정부와 아랍에미리트연합국 정부 간의 군사협력에 관한 협정)
• Sweden(대한민국 정부와 스웨덴왕국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보 보호에 관한 협정)
• Jordan(대한민국 정부와 요르단왕국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 교환 및 상호 보호에 관한 협정)
• NATO(대한민국 정부와 북대서양조약기구 간의 정보보안에 관한 양해각서)
• Spain(대한민국과 스페인왕국 간의 군사비밀보호에 관한 협정)
• Bulgaria(대한민국 정부와 불가리아 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 교환과 보호에 관한 협정)
• Poland(대한민국 정부와 폴란드공화국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 대한 협정)
• UK(대한민국 정부와 영국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• Australia(대한민국 정부와 호주 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 대한 협정)
• Uzbekistan(대한민국 정부와 우즈베키스탄공화국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• New Zealand(대한민국 정부와 뉴질랜드 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• Saudi Arabia(대한민국 정부와 사우디아라비아왕국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• India(대한민국 정부와 인도공화국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• Romania(대한민국 정부와 루마니아 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• Philippines(대한민국 정부와 필리핀공화국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• Qatar(대한민국 정부와 카타르국 정부 간의 군사 분야 협력에 관한 협정)
• Greece(대한민국 정부와 그리스공화국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 상호 보호에 관한 협정)
• Hungary(대한민국 정부와 헝가리 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 교환 및 상호 보호에 관한 협정)
• Thailand(대한민국 정부와 타이왕국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 상호 보호에 관한 협정)
• Italy(대한민국 정부와 이탈리아공화국 정부 간의 국방협력에 관한 협정)
• Swiss(대한민국 정부와 스위스 연방 각의 간의 군사비밀정보의 상호 보호에 관한 협정)
• Mongol(대한민국 정부와 몽골 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• Chile(대한민국 정부와 칠레공화국 정부 간의 국방협력에 관한 협정)

The Korean government is also pursuing the signing of GSOMIA with eight additional countries, including China and South Africa.

In conclusion, GSOMIA is not as huge relationship as you might imagine, it’s no different than “they have diplomatic relations by exchanging ambassadors with each other.”

Korea has signed and maintained GSOMIA include the United States, Russia, UK, France, Italy, China, Sweden, and Israel. Then, why is it that only Japan can claim rights over Korea, beating out these many countries? Because they just eat rice?

[SaabGripen]

@DiamondLag

Yes, they currently are under the recent “American-Japanese-Korean trilateral pact”

This is NOT something tangible “pact” like NATO or the Warsaw Pact.

It is simply a name for two separate alliances centered on the United States. Simply, ‘A and B shook hands’ and ‘A and C shook hands’ does not mean that ‘B and C shook hands.’

@DiamondLag

This pact also includes cooperation and exercises between the tree partners.

South Korean Ground Forces Tech Tree

https://forum.warthunder.com/t/south-korean-ground-forces-tech-tree/9099/48 https://nara.getarchive.net/media/onboard-the-us-navy-usn-dock-landing-ship-uss-harpers-ferry-lsd-49-us-marine-5be033 There seem to be a lot of fans of “Military drills together IRL”. That’s why I want to remind you of the “Military drills together IRL” the US had with Russia. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/19/africa/south-africa-russia-china-military-drills-intl-cmd/index.html South Africa also did “Military drills…

[DiamondLag]

@SaabGripen

You seem to think that GSOMIA is a great scale agreement, on the level of an alliance treaty, but that is not the case. GSOMIA is merely an agreement to exchange mutual information and protect information obtained from each other. In particular, the GSOMIA relationship between Korea and Japan was terminated in 2019

No i dont think i made the case it was an agreement that meant close cooperation.

The agreement was also restarted in 2023.

@SaabGripen

It is simply a name for two separate alliances centered on the United States. Simply, ‘A and B shook hands’ and ‘A and C shook hands’ does not mean that ‘B and C shook hands.’

I dont think there being some mediator country between the two discredit the fact its a major step for joint militaty cooperation.

@SaabGripen

There seem to be a lot of fans of “Military drills together IRL”. That’s why I want to remind you of the “Military drills together IRL” the US had with Russia. South Africa also did “Military drills together IRL” jwith Russia and China. To sum up, your basis is only that “Japan lacks vehicles.” Then, why does the solution have to be Korea? Because they are “Asian”?

Yeah i think the insistent need to have some arbitrary requirement filled for countries to be in trees together is for the most part quite silly.

I point to things because for some reason people want those boxes ticked. And i do make it open for the fact there are many countries that would be perfectly fine additions to Japan or Korea

I think the responses following on from the messages you quoted made that fairly clear.

[Arctic-Fox]

just waiting for mod to come in and say: STAY ON TOPC
using scary red letters and everything