Korea Main Battle Tank programs

Windchime

Well-known member
Moderator
Professional
South Korea Moderator
Messages
416
Reactions
22 1,279
Nation of residence
Poland
Nation of origin
South Korea
It would by nice to have a comparable Korean short-stroke tank engine to rival MTU.
I'm not sure on why you and Baljak are so obsessed about short-stroke engines.

Yes, their throttle response could be better since they are short-stroke but low-end torque always favors the long-stroke given equal-everything else. DV27K's problems/deficiencies were/are not caused due to its long-stroke design, but rather stems from the inferior design and manufacturing capabilities of Doosan Infracore in the field of heavy duty high-speed diesel engines. There are plenty of good long-stroke designs out there around the world.

As for the contemporary western Tanks the British use the long-stroke CV12 as well. Talking about square or short-stroke engines, for example the ADVS-1790 was a square engine, and was a design of very long history. It's engine block could be stemmed back to the mid 20th century. Another American diesel by Continental, the AVCR-1360 was short-stroke but had a complex VGT design and needed a lot of its output used on cooling. French also had a short-stroke design in their SACM V8X but it also has a complex and expensive gas-turbine like turbo design for performance boost. MTU went from long-stroke in MB873 to short-stroke in MT883 but as I've said other German diesel manufacturers like MAN have some different approaches. So there's hardly a single answer when it comes to engine design, especially the bore-stroke ratio, unless we are talking about very specific purposes like motorsports or marine applications. For one the US went long-stroke with the Cummins ACE, although it should be noted that this thing is opposing piston so its characteristics are quite different from traditional diesel.


Apart from that, we could generally be happy about the fact that HHI took over DI.
 
Last edited:

Chocopie

Contributor
South Korea Correspondent
Messages
531
Reactions
33 1,953
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
South Korea
I'm not sure on why you and Baljak are so obsessed about short-stroke engines.

Yes, their throttle response could be better since they are short-stroke but low-end torque always favors the long-stroke given equal-everything else. DV27K's problems/deficiencies were/are not caused due to its long-stroke design, but rather stems from the inferior design and manufacturing capabilities of Doosan Infracore in the field of heavy duty high-speed diesel engines. There are plenty of good long-stroke designs out there around the world.

As for the contemporary western Tanks the British use the long-stroke CV12 as well. Talking about square or short-stroke engines, for example the ADVS-1790 was a square engine, and was a design of very long history. It's engine block could be stemmed back to the mid 20th century. Another American diesel by Continental, the AVCR-1360 was short-stroke but had a complex VGT design and needed a lot of its output used on cooling. French also had a short-stroke design in their SACM V8X but it also has a complex and expensive gas-turbine like turbo design for performance boost. MTU went from long-stroke in MB873 to short-stroke in MT883 but as I've said other German diesel manufacturers like MAN have some different approaches. So there's hardly a single answer when it comes to engine design, especially the bore-stroke ratio, unless we are talking about very specific purposes like motorsports or marine applications. For one the US went long-stroke with the Cummins ACE, although it should be noted that this thing is opposing piston so its characteristics are quite different from traditional diesel.


Apart from that, we could generally be happy about the fact that HHI took over DI.
Not obsessed, I appreciate the compact size and lesser weight of MTU designed tank engines. It‘s a very good step that HHI acquired Doosan, an improvement in quality and capability will follow.
 

Baljak

Active member
Moderator
Professional
South Korea Moderator
Messages
146
Reactions
8 856
Nation of residence
South Korea
Nation of origin
South Korea
I'm not sure on why you and Baljak are so obsessed about short-stroke engines.

Yes, their throttle response could be better since they are short-stroke but low-end torque always favors the long-stroke given equal-everything else. DV27K's problems/deficiencies were/are not caused due to its long-stroke design, but rather stems from the inferior design and manufacturing capabilities of Doosan Infracore in the field of heavy duty high-speed diesel engines. There are plenty of good long-stroke designs out there around the world.

As for the contemporary western Tanks the British use the long-stroke CV12 as well. Talking about square or short-stroke engines, for example the ADVS-1790 was a square engine, and was a design of very long history. It's engine block could be stemmed back to the mid 20th century. Another American diesel by Continental, the AVCR-1360 was short-stroke but had a complex VGT design and needed a lot of its output used on cooling. French also had a short-stroke design in their SACM V8X but it also has a complex and expensive gas-turbine like turbo design for performance boost. MTU went from long-stroke in MB873 to short-stroke in MT883 but as I've said other German diesel manufacturers like MAN have some different approaches. So there's hardly a single answer when it comes to engine design, especially the bore-stroke ratio, unless we are talking about very specific purposes like motorsports or marine applications. For one the US went long-stroke with the Cummins ACE, although it should be noted that this thing is opposing piston so its characteristics are quite different from traditional diesel.


Apart from that, we could generally be happy about the fact that HHI took over DI.
The reason I'm obsessed is correct and this is not wrong. We need to know about the concept of K2 Black Panther. K2 is not a Western MBT over 60 tons with a thick armour as we commonly know it.

K2 is less than 60 tons, hydropneumatic suspension with variable dampers, turrets designed to be extremely flat to reduce the chance of being hit, and maneuver tactics that retreat quickly after deploying the soft-kill active defense multi-spectral smoke grenade, all of which were demanded by the South Korean Army.

Unlike the previous K1, most of the major components in the K2 were designed to be extremely lightweight, and the purpose of all of these components was to provide mobility to operate in the rugged mountainous terrain of the Korean Peninsula.

It is clearly different from K2's design idea that the K2 uses the same 1500 horsepower engine as the Leopard, but is slower to accelerate than the Leopard, which is over 60 tons. This is also related to the obsolescence of Korea's current military engine technology. In addition to the Leopard 2 (6 second), M1A2 (7.2 Second) and Challenger you mentioned, Merkava also has a 32 km acceleration performance of 10 seconds. Because these tanks are not designed for maneuverability tactics like K2.

Post-attack defense and rapid retreat are the most important in the design concept pursued by the K2, and this is still at the heart of the Korean Army's mechanized maneuver tactics. The K2 is slower to accelerate than the M1 and Leopard, which weigh more than 65 tons, even though it was developed as a mobility tank. To this day, the K2 power pack, which many military experts in Korea point out, is still below the standard of the South Korean army's ROC. Really still does this look normal to you? Or am I abnormal?

It seems to me that you don't understand why the K2 should have a better engine and transmission than it does now. I think you need to read the post below seriously.

1500마력 전차의 가속력은 <6초>가 정상적
 

Windchime

Well-known member
Moderator
Professional
South Korea Moderator
Messages
416
Reactions
22 1,279
Nation of residence
Poland
Nation of origin
South Korea
The reason I'm obsessed is correct and this is not wrong. We need to know about the concept of K2 Black Panther. K2 is not a Western MBT over 60 tons with a thick armour as we commonly know it.

K2 is less than 60 tons, hydropneumatic suspension with variable dampers, turrets designed to be extremely flat to reduce the chance of being hit, and maneuver tactics that retreat quickly after deploying the soft-kill active defense multi-spectral smoke grenade, all of which were demanded by the South Korean Army.

Unlike the previous K1, most of the major components in the K2 were designed to be extremely lightweight, and the purpose of all of these components was to provide mobility to operate in the rugged mountainous terrain of the Korean Peninsula.

It is clearly different from K2's design idea that the K2 uses the same 1500 horsepower engine as the Leopard, but is slower to accelerate than the Leopard, which is over 60 tons. This is also related to the obsolescence of Korea's current military engine technology. In addition to the Leopard 2 (6 second), M1A2 (7.2 Second) and Challenger you mentioned, Merkava also has a 32 km acceleration performance of 10 seconds. Because these tanks are not designed for maneuverability tactics like K2.

Post-attack defense and rapid retreat are the most important in the design concept pursued by the K2, and this is still at the heart of the Korean Army's mechanized maneuver tactics. The K2 is slower to accelerate than the M1 and Leopard, which weigh more than 65 tons, even though it was developed as a mobility tank. To this day, the K2 power pack, which many military experts in Korea point out, is still below the standard of the South Korean army's ROC. Really still does this look normal to you? Or am I abnormal?

It seems to me that you don't understand why the K2 should have a better engine and transmission than it does now. I think you need to read the post below seriously.

1500마력 전차의 가속력은 <6초>가 정상적
Sorry but you're hitting a straw. Go back and read my posts again and you'll notice that not once that I've argued that the performance of the original Korean powerpack consisting of DV27K and EST15K as an acceptable performance. In fact its the opposite and I've clearly mentioned "problems" and "deficiencies" regarding the engine several times.

Also, the performance of the Korean-German hybrid powerpack consisting of RENK transmission was never disclosed publicly. You can't and should not judge the performance of DV27K based on the figures from mid 2010s since those figures were obtained coupled to a flawed transmission.

Moreover, everything I wrote was to debunk the misinformation you are spreading. If you want to say that you are "correct", go find a source to back it up. You currently have none.

1.) DV27K is based on a ship engine
- No, can't be more false.

2.) Engine from STX will be used for K2
- Also no. It's not even in their portofolio.

3.) Long-stroke is inferior to short-stroke
- Again no. That's not a given as I've described on my previous post. For instance the Leopard 2 acceleration figures that you are mentioning are obtained with a long-stroke MB873 engine. Add to that the M1 uses a gas turbine with superior low-end torque figures. If you want to argue that the K2 acceleration performance deficiencies compared to other contemporary western tanks are stemming from DV27K's long-stroke cylinder structure, you have to give a credible source.

You might be experts in armor but you clearly aren't an expert in powertrains.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom