MBT's - Page 14

DRG · #**131** April 11th, 2011, 08:14 AM

Referring to post 129 , in the the first set of photos the left image seems to show a different turret than the right with the left seeming to show straighter front turret armour and a welded turret side but on closer examination when enlarged the "straight" effect to the right of the drivers head appears to be the result of the compression effects of a powerful telephoto lens and these are indeed, the same tank.

Sooooo...... if this is indeed a variation of the same tank, as it appears to be, which one is the P'okpoong-ho and if it's the photo of the tank we based the last changes on why doesn't it have add on armour ?

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #**132** April 11th, 2011, 09:08 PM

All I can say for sure is that the photo on the right is without a doubt from the references submitted to date the Po. If nothing else, we know the Po is a stretched version mod of the T-62 line, refer to the road wheels 6 vs. 5 for the other tank which I thought to be the Cho V. I married the photo on the left to the Po one on the right in Post #129, Section "Ready...", and Para A. as listed because the turrets did look the same to me except for the coloration issue. The only issue I had of any minor concern was I couldn't see the hull to get a front view lower down and get a road wheel count as noted in the beginning of that Post and in Para B. The photos I've posted were taken in Oct. 2010.

So...

1. The photo on the right is the Po, I'm 100%+ on that, even the refs that think the Po has a 125mm state it has a stretched hull.

2. If we assume the photo on the left isn't the Po turret the only thing that makes sense is that what I think is the Cho V (Para B.) must be the Cho IV as Marcello suggests (I think it's still newer than the Cho III-sorry.). I will concede that point, if done the logical conclusion is that the hull has to belong to the Cho V.

3. Again only the Po has the stretched hull, thus six road wheels.

4. I'll present this don't know if it helps, but it also shows the left photo as the Po.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...FIjLgQf_3LzLCA

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #**133** April 11th, 2011, 09:45 PM

Change #2. to read "turret" vice "hull" last sentence. And to clear up Marcello thought the other tank from Para B. to be either the
Cho III or IV in Post #129.

Regards,
Pat

DRG · #**134** April 12th, 2011, 08:50 AM

.....and to be very clear exactly what post and photo are you refering to when you write ." The photo on the right is the Po". I was refering to post 129 the first set of photos. I really am not sure which one you are referring to. my post or 129 or one other

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #**135** April 12th, 2011, 11:30 AM

Post #129, first set (top most) of photos, one on the right, full tank shot, road wheel count 6, is the Po.

Regards,
Pat

DRG · #**136** April 12th, 2011, 02:18 PM

OK, don't want to ASSUME.....

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #**137** April 13th, 2011, 01:58 AM

Don,
Not to worry that "word" has bitten us all in the as.ume at one time or another.

Regards,
Pat

DRG · #**138** April 13th, 2011, 07:44 AM

The next issue is the gun. Why stretch the hull by at least 2 feet unless you are putting a bigger turret on it to hold a bigger gun.

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #**139** April 14th, 2011, 03:08 AM

I really thought that gun issue was settled. Back to
Post #129 pictures, let's please ignore the top left non - full shot one, except for some "cosmetic" differences the turrets are the same as are the guns, all views are very similar in regard to angle of approach and size of the photos between the Po (TR),
Cho (LL) and Russian T-62M1 (LR) or for that matter any other pictures submitted or refs including again even Russian tank gun maker. That's a 115mm.

From a couple of the refs we're talking about a 2 meter increase in length. Again this is supposed to be their most advanced tank to date. These aren't my notions only but come from reading from a myriad of reference sources for this forum and my own personal readings from my modest "library". So...

1. Yours is a very good point, however I've noted my thoughts already.

Here's other possibilities...
2. Larger engine installed to increase speed and generate more power in both torque (Terrain is an issue here more so then in Eastern and Western European battlefields the T-62 was designed to fight in.) and literally to power the additional AC and power supplies needed for the more modern combat systems carried on board.

3. As noted above Power and distribution panels (Now we're talking my shh...) and cooling systems (Fans, chill water (Yes they come that small and smaller.) systems both or stand alone but, one of them for sure to support updated FC, Targeting and other newer on board computer systems. Starting to fill up that space now but there's more.

4. Improved NBC systems.

5. Fire suppression system(s).

6. Increased fuel capacity some refs submitted suggested this as a possibility as well makes sense with number #1.

7. Along with #5 increased ammo stowage also hinted at.

8. Added road wheels (Means added suspension.) with a stretched hull provides for a more stable gun platform, ride, mobility, obstacle clearing and maneuverability coupled with #1.

9. We've seen this before without necessarily adding road wheels but slightly extending the hulls by degrees to accommodate larger engines for most of the reasons above and more. Look at the following examples and think about the improvements made in combat efficiency in transition from the M-60, M-60A1, M-60A3,
M60A3 TTS, IDF Ma-BACH/SABRA series and finally M60T. Or if I remember 750hp to 1200hp (Might be higher for M60T don't remember.) And the final example was the engine upgrade (TIGER Program.) for the early M1 & M1A1 tanks to increase performance and support system upgrades.

10. How about that K2 at the bottom of Post #129? If I ever get to it!?!

Regards,
Pat

Marcello · #**140** April 14th, 2011, 03:28 PM

Quote:

to power the additional AC and power supplies needed for the more modern combat systems carried on board.

AFAIK proper air conditioning in relation to combat systems is usually provided only to support the TI sight and these tanks are apparently not fitted with TI.
The remaining systems, can easily do without although naturally cooling systems are needed for the engine and such heat generating systems. While Korea can get hot in summer it is not a desert and even in that case heavy AFVs are typically given little or no AC.
I suspect that the extra roadwheel set in the new "boxy" tanks is to support the extra weight, largely due to the armor increase. Probably same reason the dedicated Black Eagle hull got the seventh roadwheel set.
Maybe they were designed to be protected against 105mm ammo or such, though increase in fuel/armor may have been included as well.