DPRK M-2020 Tank

S

Sineva

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
29 April 2010
Messages
203
Reaction score
518
The latest pics of the new m-2020,now with a lot of new reactive armor and also the covers on the sighting systems are now open as well.
We even see Kim fit his bulk into the drivers seat,so there must be quite a bit of room in there.;)
Sadly still no sign of the integrated panoramic sight and remote weapons station
GIlSh1ebgAEXKRT.jpg
GIlQGvYbgAIU5yi

https://twitter.com/x/status/1768032410011402451
https://twitter.com/x/status/1768035075172827532
 
Last edited:
Would feel NK can be considered to have its own unique lineage of tank. Instead based on T-72, it's more likely based on T-62's. That "M-2020" shows a conventional 4 man layout, evidented by the Gunner's sight located right ahead of the Commander's panoramic sight. and nothing of sort in the left side of the tank.

Remains to be seen however on the armor and munition stowage layout.
 
That's not a serious analysis, just the typical western arrogant attitude of ridiculing DPRK gear.

Personally, i secretely hope there is a bit of TR-125 pedigree in there.
 
DWG said:
They cut holes in the turret armour to fit around the smoke grenade dischargers; I think there's room for ridicule..
Click to expand...
They also have more tanks with hardkill APS in service than the French army, there's plenty of room for admiration...
"holes in the armour" is also besides the point. It's probably an acceptable sacrifice to make room for the APS launch tube.
Also, said "smoke grenades" is actually not smoke grenade, but proper, functioning Kim-Drozd. The actual smoke GLs are way back, in the side bustle rack.
 
Room for admiration doesn't rule out room for ridicule.
Option 1, move the APS launchers outside the armour, armour isn't compromised
Option 2, move the APS launchers to the turret top, armour isn't compromised, potentially opens up APS envelope vs top attack weapons
Option 3, move the APS launchers to the hull, armour isn't compromised, APS sector coverage is now independent of turret facing
 
DWG said:
They cut holes in the turret armour to fit around the smoke grenade dischargers; I think there's room for ridicule..
Click to expand...
I'm assuming that's the outer layer of spaced armor. Not even the Norks are that idiotic as to cut holes all the way through armor...

Interesting that it has what appears to be a pair of ATGMs outside anything launched out of the 125mm gun. Loitering munitions or simple ATGMs?

Using a Drozd-type APS is odd, but probably most effective.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm assuming that's the outer layer of spaced armor. Not even the Norks are that idiotic as to cut holes all the way through armor...
Click to expand...
That's pretty much my assumption. There has to be an inner layer of armour, which makes me wonder if we're looking at a box clapped on top of a cast turret to look more modern.
 
DWG said:
That's pretty much my assumption. There has to be an inner layer of armour, which makes me wonder if we're looking at a box clapped on top of a cast turret to look more modern.
Click to expand...
Looking at how the Drozd tubes seem to angle, I do think the underlying structure is circular. Space between the tubes is even and the angles are also even.
 
DWG said:
Room for admiration doesn't rule out room for ridicule.
Click to expand...
Often yes, but in this case there's little to ridicule if enough attention is paid. I have my own criticism on the M2020 but certainly none on the APS design.
DWG said:
Option 1, move the APS launchers outside the armour, armour isn't compromised
Click to expand...
Add weights, increase burden on the turret drive mechanism, increase profile and vulnerability of APS launchers to small arms.
DWG said:
Option 2, move the APS launchers to the turret top, armour isn't compromised, potentially opens up APS envelope vs top attack weapons
Click to expand...
Raise overall CoG, increase burden on drive mechanism (again), increase profile, take away space for antennas, hatches, periscopes and the like.
DWG said:
Option 3, move the APS launchers to the hull, armour isn't compromised, APS sector coverage is now independent of turret facing
Click to expand...
Needs more APS launchers for similar coverage, also APS on the hull means susceptibility to mud and terrain.

It's most likely that the Norks engineers took design cues from Armata and ported the APS layout to a manned turret. All in all what the little armour coverage said engineers removed at the bottomost corner is barely comparable to the gigantic hole they made right next to the gun mantlet which I haven't seen anybody complaining about...
 
"Option 1, move the APS launchers outside the armour, armour isn't compromised"

Add weights, increase burden on the turret drive mechanism, increase profile and vulnerability of APS launchers to small arms.
Click to expand...

I'll give you increased vulnerability to small arms (though that's what light armour is for), but do you really believe "it's lighter" justifies armour with holes in it? If filling those holes makes a significant impact on the turret drive mechanism, then it didn't have enough margin to start with.

"Option 2, move the APS launchers to the turret top, armour isn't compromised, potentially opens up APS envelope vs top attack weapons"

Raise overall CoG, increase burden on drive mechanism (again), increase profile, take away space for antennas, hatches, periscopes and the like.
Click to expand...

Again, armour with holes in is superior? You can't argue both increased profile AND needed space for antennae etc, pick one or the other. It's clear from the pictures that the MG and commander's hunter-killer sight are higher than any APS installation would be, so profile impact is zero. COG impact should be minimal on a tank weighing greater than 50t

"Option 3, move the APS launchers to the hull, armour isn't compromised, APS sector coverage is now independent of turret facing"

Needs more APS launchers for similar coverage, also APS on the hull means susceptibility to mud and terrain.
Click to expand...

The problem with APS on the turret is how does it function when someone engages you from the way you aren't currently facing? Fixed mountings on the hull can give you full 360 coverage degrees, making facing irrelevant. And while a turret could be set up for all around defence, that doesn't seem to be the case here. If the turret is slewed 90 degrees right, the left side of the tank is unprotected, and vice versa.

The current set-up appears to be three tubes firing directly to each side of the turret, then three more tubes set up to cover forward of that spread from roughly 0 to 90 degrees on either side. It's not clear that the APS offers even 270 degrees coverage. That's easy enough to implement on a hull installation with exactly the same number of launchers, and you can add another set for coverage aft. Heavy brush guards would help vs the environment, but a light armoured box is probably better for protection vs shrapnel etc.
 
DWG said:
If filling those holes makes a significant impact on the turret drive mechanism, then it didn't have enough margin to start with
Click to expand...
You significantly underestimate the weight of APS installations... The SEPv3 required steel slabs on the turret cheeks to act as counterweight for Trophy.
The KPA routinely iterate designs base on previous MBTs much alike the PLAN's 052 series evolution. The Songun-915 is an exception, but it heavily bases itself on the T-62. So "not enough power margin", while not terribly convincing, is possible.
DWG said:
armour with holes in is superior?
Click to expand...
Not when the holes are in a place where it's highly unlikely to be hit in the first place... Could it ruin structural integrity? Yes but only if the holes are bored in after the armour design has been finalized. The engineers could have that area protected with a backplate that resists medium-caliber AP rounds for example. I would not make assumptions here but it's unlikely for the M2020 to have hollowed slots on its turret cheeks without some kind of compensation.
DWG said:
The problem with APS on the turret is how does it function when someone engages you from the way you aren't currently facing?
Click to expand...
CONOPS dictates employment... If the M2020 is employed as a weapon of defense, it could live with limited traverse allowance. Furthermore the LWRs and and radar panels could train the turret to fire countermeasures, like many other smoke-based APS systems.
 
BMPD's take on the new DPRK tank with lots of pics of it and the exercise in general.
bmpd.livejournal.com

Новый северокорейский танк

Северокорейское информационное агентство ЦТАК сообщило , что 13 марта 2024 года лидер КНДР товарищ Ким Чен Ын руководил соревнованиями по боевой подготовке между танковыми соединениями Корейской народной армии (КНА) на базе придворной 105-й гвардейской Сеульской танковой дивизии имени…
bmpd.livejournal.com bmpd.livejournal.com
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm assuming that's the outer layer of spaced armor. Not even the Norks are that idiotic as to cut holes all the way through armor...

Interesting that it has what appears to be a pair of ATGMs outside anything launched out of the 125mm gun. Loitering munitions or simple ATGMs?

Using a Drozd-type APS is odd, but probably most effective.
Click to expand...
DPRK has been fitting twin ATGMs launchers and MANPADS on their tanks for over a decade, so nothing unusual there.
DWG said:
That's pretty much my assumption. There has to be an inner layer of armour, which makes me wonder if we're looking at a box clapped on top of a cast turret to look more modern.
Click to expand...
DPRK has been building welded turret tanks for couple of decades already. You can even see them in the link above.
 
asVAL said:
You significantly underestimate the weight of APS installations... The SEPv3 required steel slabs on the turret cheeks to act as counterweight for Trophy.
Click to expand...
That sounds like balance, not weight, related, but not the same thing.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It was. The Abrams turret doesn't have a good spot to stick the Trophy systems and have it all naturally balanced.
Click to expand...
Slightly off topic but you can see the proposed Abrams set up here:

www.twz.com

Images Emerge Of M1A2 Abrams Tank Equipped With Trophy Active Protection System

The new system is more cumbersome than some may have expected and makes the iconic Abrams appear as if it has "ears" from a head-on perspective.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

hhdhh1411.jpg

message-editor%2F1507541688114-screenshot2017-10-09at1.55.50am.png


In part the current M1E3 program is aimed at addressing the weight/balance issues.

No back to the main topic.
 
GTX said:
In part the current M1E3 program is aimed at addressing the weight/balance issues.

No back to the main topic.
Click to expand...

Two autoloaders, no wonder the thing's so heavy. Also makes it unusable as an exemplar for likely weight of the North Korean system.

And I hope someone thought to check the wider turret vs European rail loading gauges.
 
DWG said:
exemplar for likely weight of the North Korean system
Click to expand...
However, a fully external installation could reach that weight class...
Meh, at this point someone just have to bring in an UVZ boss to explain why he chose to have Afghanit the way it is. I'm done with this.
 
Sineva said:
The latest pics of the new m-2020,now with a lot of new reactive armor and also the covers on the sighting systems are now open as well.
We even see Kim fit his bulk into the drivers seat,so there must be quite a bit of room in there.;)
Sadly still no sign of the integrated panoramic sight and remote weapons station
View attachment 722284
GIlQGvYbgAIU5yi

https://twitter.com/x/status/1768032410011402451
https://twitter.com/x/status/1768035075172827532
Click to expand...
I find it interesting how they make the chassis so wide yet the turret much smaller.
 
asVAL said:
However, a fully external installation could reach that weight class...
Click to expand...
Only if you add in two autoloaders and the elevation mechanism that seems to be present (x2). You can't argue weight equivalence for completely different mechanical setups.
 
stealthflanker said:
Would feel NK can be considered to have its own unique lineage of tank. Instead based on T-72, it's more likely based on T-62's. That "M-2020" shows a conventional 4 man layout, evidented by the Gunner's sight located right ahead of the Commander's panoramic sight. and nothing of sort in the left side of the tank.

Remains to be seen however on the armor and munition stowage layout.
Click to expand...
I'm going to guess since modern-day Russian and Chinese tanks are still using the carousel there is a high probability that they are using the same concept since North Korea likes to copy other nation's creations. This is the T-14----------------- 1710804485594.png
 
DWG said:
Only if you add in two autoloaders and the elevation mechanism that seems to be present (x2). You can't argue weight equivalence for completely different mechanical setups.
Click to expand...
However I also presented the claim that: the Norks has a very bad (relatively speaking) turret drive system that doesnt permit the use of a fully externalized system, which will be slightly heavier, and much more chunkier.
Could they? Or did they just outright copied Drozd so as to sastified Kim? No one here knows. I lean on the latter but that doesn't mean the installation is ridiculous in anyway. Strange, outdated, yes, but not "ridiculous". UVZ with half a decade century of work on MBTs chose that layout. I dare not question their expertise.
Like I said, I'd rather this end here.
 
Last edited:
asVAL said:
However I also presented the claim that: the Norks has a very bad (relatively speaking) turret drive system that doesnt permit the use of a fully externalized system, which will be slightly heavier, and much more chunkier.
Could they? Or did they just outright copied Drozd so as to sastified Kim? No one here knows. I lean on the latter but that doesn't mean the installation is ridiculous in anyway. Strange, outdated, yes, but not "ridiculous". UVZ with half a decade of work on MBTs chose that layout. I dare not question their expertise.
Like I said, I'd rather this end here.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the Russian Naval Infantry (marines) still use T55s with Drozd on them, as do any units above the Arctic Circle. Lower ground pressure on the T55, and the Drozd does work (if limited in arc).
 
I just know noticed that the north sides tank had tubes somewhat like the t14 armata could they be similar to its active defense system or could they just be smoke grenade launchers ?
 
quinn whitsitt said:
I just know noticed that the north sides tank had tubes somewhat like the t14 armata could they be similar to its active defense system or could they just be smoke grenade launchers ?
Click to expand...
The big tubes down low on the turret are almost certainly some APS. Smoke grenade launchers tend to throw their loads up, not flat like those tubes are aimed.
 
A channel of armour warfare
Preliminar tech info about the tank, Is in spanish. Sorry for that
One of the thins that he say, that the tank have a 4 crew turret with a 115 mm gun
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom