Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31

Thread: ROK Army T-80U and BMP-3

  1. #1
    Senior Member Ambassador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC Inside Platinum
    Posts
    6,943

    Default ROK Army T-80U and BMP-3

    The ROK Army operates 35 T-80U and 70 BMP-3 as the core of its 3rd Mechanized Regiment that defends Korea's eastern border. They were given by Russia during the weapon-for-debt Brown Bear program in the 1990s.























  2. #2
    Senior Member Siempre_Leal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Land of Blago
    Posts
    10,377

    Default

    Awesome pics! thank you

  3. #3
    Peacemaker Zorro C9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    10,013

    Default

    I didn't know anything about that, thanks for the photos.

  4. #4
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    20,109

    Arrow

    Fascinating! Thanks!

  5. #5
    Senior Member Ambassador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC Inside Platinum
    Posts
    6,943

    Default

    Welcome everyone.

    In 2005, the Korean BMP-3 received upgrades to its thermal imaging camera and targeting systems (together with a wind speed/directional sensor and something else I don't know) for better all-weather night fighting capability. They now have separate gunner's sight and commander's panoramic sight like the Russian Army's.

    old and new:





    The T-80U got upgrades to its ballistic computer and fire control unit as well in minor localization projects of Army strategic materials for ease of maintenance, which I will post more info on later.

  6. #6
    Suspended for infractions
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Pillau
    Age
    34
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    Good thread, thanks.

  7. #7
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    476

    Default

    The sight for the commander, is it a 360 free movable sight or is it stick with the turret?
    You probably don't have some pics how it looks inside the vehicle.

  8. #8
    Senior Member ~UNiOnJaCk~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    5,138

    Default

    I notice you state how some parts were replaced on the vehicles with domestic alternatives to ease the maintenance/logistics problem, what i am wondering however is that there are not exactly many of each type in service thus is it worth the ROK Army continuing to keep these vehicles in service? There can't be enough of them present to field too many units of each and yet for all this there still has to be a reasonably significant degree of differing logistics requirements.

    Have to say though i am loving the look of them, the T-80 especially. Looks excellent in that paint scheme.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Ambassador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC Inside Platinum
    Posts
    6,943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan12 View Post
    The sight for the commander, is it a 360 free movable sight or is it stick with the turret?
    You probably don't have some pics how it looks inside the vehicle.
    Unfortunately I don't have the BMP-3's interior pics. However the sight most likely sticks with the turret.

    The T-80U are fully armored with ERA and SAP. After a recent overhaul, they also use performance-improved engines that improve fuel efficiency and reduce breakdown rate and gas emission.






    Localization of cases (3/4)
    T-80U tram engine - domestic maintenance capacity development
    Summary: T-80U tanks (Russia) the main engine, auxiliary engine has been overseas maintenance, but
    Maintenance required for a long-term maintenance budget by excessive domestic maintenance propulsion technology development
    Development period: '03. From December '08. August

    Localization of cases (4/4)
    BMP-3 armored personnel carriers - domestic maintenance capacity development
    Overview: BMP-3 armored personnel carriers (Russia) in the horizontal amplifier, control device has been overseas maintenance, but
    Maintenance required for a long-term and maintenance budget by excessive domestic maintenance propulsion technology development
    Development period: '07. From January '09. April

    http://www.army.mil.kr/gtboard/commo...%F8%BC%AD2.pdf (Korean language)
    rear view of T-80U before overhaul:



    According to Army Logistics, because the T-80U/BMP-3 fleet was kinda small, shipping the needed spare parts in small packages all the way from Russia each time a vehicle was grounded was not very efficient, so they set up a maintenance depot and component factory for them separate from the K-series vehicles, and localized some parts that Russia would approve. As a result, the ROKA fleet of T-80U and BMP-3 can maintain high readiness level at all times and have been used rigorously. They also have maintenance simulators for both T-80U and BMP-3 as instruction materials for the maintenance crew.




    While T-80U and BMP-3 are formal warfighting assets of the ROK Army, they are also strategically valuable intelligence sources of NK's potential armored capabilities. In fact, in the 1990s, amidst intense fearmongering from the public that the disaster-struck NK would soon initiate a desperate last war, ROKA overestimated that NK would deploy tanks that were superior to the T-72 in the conflict. So the ROK president decided to buy one of Russia's best tanks to learn their capabilities. In the end, NK introduced the Pokpoongho tank by almost a generation late, when pitched ground warfare in the Korean peninsula has already become largely irrelevant, but at the time T-80U provided ROKA with a much needed quick fix for its intelligence efforts, including in determining a suitable ROC for the armor and weapons of K1A1.



    Quote Originally Posted by ~UNiOnJaCk~ View Post
    I notice you state how some parts were replaced on the vehicles with domestic alternatives to ease the maintenance/logistics problem, what i am wondering however is that there are not exactly many of each type in service thus is it worth the ROK Army continuing to keep these vehicles in service? There can't be enough of them present to field too many units of each and yet for all this there still has to be a reasonably significant degree of differing logistics requirements.

    Have to say though i am loving the look of them, the T-80 especially. Looks excellent in that paint scheme.
    The Army is conscious of those logistics issues too, so it has been negotiating with the Russian government for localization of key parts. Whenever I find more information I'll post them here.

    Afaik, all Russian equipment in Korea are in good service, including Murena hovercraft for the Navy, Il basic trainers for the Air Force (forgot the exact designation) and KA-32 for the Air Force and the Coast Guard.
    Last edited by Ambassador; 03-02-2013 at 06:48 AM.

  10. #10
    Suspended for infractions
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Pillau
    Age
    34
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    As i see ROK also use high technology wooden logs

  11. #11
    Member Blouin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Great pics, thanks

  12. #12
    Senior Member Xaito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    28
    Posts
    12,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YevgenyP View Post
    As i see ROK also use high technology wooden logs
    probably standard equipment according to the manual

  13. #13

    Default

    I wonder why ROK uses these machines for typical land warfighting - it might be confusing in time of war.
    On the other hand, soviet equipment packs substantial firepower, is generally lighter than western counterparts and more compact and amphibious. It would be easier to cram it on ships. When used in such limited role, lack of commonality with rest of the force is non-issue. As such these would be ideal addition for ROK Marines - any tank is better than no tank, and it's easier to land 40+ t T-80 than 60+ t western equivalent on beach.

  14. #14
    Senior Member BitnikGr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    XII Detached Signals Company, Artillery Platoon, 1999-2000
    Posts
    1,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ambassador View Post
    May we have more technical details for this armor test plate?
    Rounds used? Thickness of the plate? Angle of impact?

  15. #15
    Senior Member Ambassador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC Inside Platinum
    Posts
    6,943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deridex View Post
    I wonder why ROK uses these machines for typical land warfighting - it might be confusing in time of war.
    On the other hand, soviet equipment packs substantial firepower, is generally lighter than western counterparts and more compact and amphibious. It would be easier to cram it on ships. When used in such limited role, lack of commonality with rest of the force is non-issue. As such these would be ideal addition for ROK Marines - any tank is better than no tank, and it's easier to land 40+ t T-80 than 60+ t western equivalent on beach.
    Like you've said, T-80U and BMP-3 are valuable because of their amphibious capabilities. 35 T-80U and 70 BMP-3 are sufficient strength for a regimental sized amphibious force. They are fast, and since most NK land capabilities will be compromised early in the war, they would be able to withstand going through numerous river crossing operations in their race to Pyongyang. In that case, speed and good ability to navigate swamps will be the most useful advantage than pure armor. Overall, they are very capable fighting vehicles, which is the ultimate reason why they are still in active service.

    Perhaps they could also be equipped with IFF to avoid friendly fire as in other Korean vehicles.



    Quote Originally Posted by BitnikGr View Post
    May we have more technical details for this armor test plate?
    Rounds used? Thickness of the plate? Angle of impact?
    I was unable to find any specific information on that from open sources. But both APFSDS and HEAT 125mm rounds were tested from T-80U and as you can see, the test was conducted from multiple angles of impact at distance of 1500 to 2000 meters. No idea about the thickness of the plate, but they were all penetrated.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •