The improvements are; a new German engine, a German larger caliber 120mm gun, a Russian active defense system against anti-tank missiles, laser warning system, new armor, automatic shell loader, and new electronics that enables the tank to carry out network centric warfare.

To put it simply we have an US designed tank improved with new European and US technologies produced in the ROK. The Korean technology that went into this tank are the ADD researchers who figured out how to integrate all those new non-Korean equipment.

Obviously the “pure korean technology” must be in reference to the software, which I will say sounds pretty nice. …or perhaps the FLIR or nightvision.
It looks like they are using the Rheinmetall smooth bore cannon that the Abrams does (produced under license)

That (software/systems) actually makes a huge difference when fighting in a group. I’ve heard from a Korean friend who served in a an armor unit that in one war game, when the Korean K1s had been equiped with a new (American made) Hunter Killer system before the American Abrams had, that they had achieved quite a decisive victory.

(disclaimer: I wasn’t a Tanker)

Any modern main battle tank has an extremely high velocity flat trajectory “gun” (”gun” having a specific artillery meaning in this case, as opposed to a “howitzer”; a howitzer can also fire “direct” at a target but is much slower to load and fire, besides having a trajectory like a rainbow).

All “modern” (ie since WWII) high velocity tank guns could be considered as “descendants” of this one, the famous/infamous German “88″:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_mm_gun

The “88″ started out as a direct fire, flat trajectory, large caliber anti-aircraft gun, and was at first only improvised for use as an anti-tank weapon (Rommel is credited for this idea, first during the German invasion of France and later in his North African campaigns).

It worked so well that the “88″ AA gun was modified for primary use as a direct-fire ground mounted anti-tank gun, and even more famously as a tank main gun (in the famous WWII German “Tiger” tank, as well as some other WWII German heavy tanks; Hitler was notorious for taking a micromanagerial direct interest in the concept and design of many of these systems).

Direct fire, large-caliber, high velocity, “single shot”, dedicated usage anti-aircraft guns have pretty much disappeared from world armies’ inventories; they just can’t be made to adjust quickly enough to track and fire successfully on “fast movers” (jets). However, that limitation doesn’t exist for helicopters, particularly hovering ones.

So as “someguy” implies in his post above, if a proficient and alert tank crew can “get the drop” on a helicopter attempting to attack them — that helicopter’s in big trouble.

The theory for the attack helicopter (actually helicopter”s”, as they should be operating in groups) is to use their superior mobility to circle around to the sides and flanks of a unit of enemy tanks, to engage with their wire- or laser-guided missiles against the tanks’ flank and rear.

However, if the tank platoon or company can get an “alert” over the radio that attack helicopters are in the vicinity, they can quickly orient their turrets respectively to cover a 360 degree circle and load up a round in the breech. The tank commander observes from open hatch position and uses his “override” control to quickly orient his gunner approx on firing azimuth; the gunner, observing through his sight, can then hit the trigger and quickly send one “on the way”, as soon as he can lay the crosshairs on (or just “near enough”) the helicopter.

Even if the helicopter is hovering just below a ridgeline, with no part of it directly visible, the “prop wash” in still air may nevertheless rise enough to be seen by the tank commander and gunner; in this case, the helo “pops up” to take a shot at its extreme peril.

The “counter-counter” for the attacking helicopters is of course to coordinate their operations with friendly tanks attacking from the front, so as to divert the attention of the enemy tanks. The “jargon” for this effect is (or used to be) “combat multiplier” (ie, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts).

If you ever encounter this seemingly obscure phrase in the literature, this scenario can serve as an example of what is meant.

Globalsecurity.org shows nothing about this latest design, but I’ve noticed that gs.org is often not very current.

How dare you besmirch the good name of globalsecurity.org? Behold, unbeliever!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/.....k/xk-2.htm

Yeah, it’s not a whole lot, so a little more research turns up this:

http://times.hankooki.com/lpag.....010160.htm

Which, strangely enough, makes little claim over being able to shoot down Apache helicopters.

The Yonhap story mentions that the nickname of the tank is the ‘Black Panther’.

http://english.yonhapnews.co.k.....057E7.html

…

…

Ooookay.

http://bemil.chosun.com/brd/vi.....;num=51966

Since I can’t read Korean, I can’t tell for sure, but I think the pictures of this latest tank show it to have a “European” look (British, French, or German). So I’m guessing it’s probably a Korean derivative of some late model European NATO tank, probably with some significant modifications as compared to the original model.

The modifications could be upgrades/enhanced technology, based on the latest technological developments; or they could be changes signifying a slightly reduced capability as compared to the original, for the purpose of cost savings.

Globalsecurity.org shows nothing about this latest design, but I’ve noticed that gs.org is often not very current. There may be something elsewhere on the net in English, I haven’t looked yet. However, here’s the gs.org link as to what they show currently for the varieties of ROK “main battle tanks”:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/.....ipment.htm

If you click on their sublink for the “Type 88/K1A1″, and then read the description, it appears (to me) to probably be an English translation of whatever standard manufacturer’s description the Korean maker (Hyundai?) of the K1A1 puts out (such description as might appear in brochures handed out at international arms shows, designed to be read by potential purchasers).

Reading it through, you will get the distinct impression that the whole concept of the K1A1 tank is entirely Korean, as though the K1A1 was brought forth originally by Korean industry just as Athena sprang forth fully formed from the forehead of Zeus.

However, if you know anything about the US M1 Abrams tank and its variants, by looking at the further sublink showing the pictures of the K1A1 you can tell that it is clearly a derivative of the US M1 Abrams.

So how much of a K1A1 is actually produced in the USA, vs how much in Korea? That I don’t know, maybe making something “under license” means that in this case the Koreans get to make every single nut, bolt, etc in Korea. I suppose the answer may vary according to each individual situation and contract.

(General Dynamics is I think the US manufacturer of the M1 Abrams, though I think the original model were developed by Chrysler corporation. Consider this unverified info from memory, haven’t confirmed it by further research).

SomeGuyinKorea, I think the K-30 has such a turret.