Re: North Korea errors report
 

I don't get it :confused:


Also

Should have been

Re: North Korea errors report
 

Ignore him.

Don

Re: North Korea errors report
 

I’m not sure about Unit 461 in the North Korean OOB. It is a SU-100 with a start date in 1951 during the Korean War. I don’t think the North Koreans used the SU-100 during that war. I have double-checked a couple of books about the Korean War and a publication about the SU-100 and none of them mentions their use during the conflict.

The SIPRI Trade Register claims that the Soviets delivered 100 SU-100s to the North Koreans between 1965 and 1968. They are presumably represented in the game by Unit 462 – which currently has a start date in 1968.

Sources:

Osprey’s Men-At-Arms Series 174: The Korean War 1950-53
Concord's Tank Warfare in Korea 1950-53
Armour in Profile 21: SU.85 and SU.100
SIPRI Trade Register

Re: North Korea errors report
 

To be honest I have alreay got burned at least once trusting SIPRI for availability dates. Let met illustrate: the iraqi OOB had once OT-64s available since 1965. This seemed way too early, as it was just entering in service then according to all sources. SIPRI gave 1981-1982 for delivery to Iraq, which seemed to make more sense. So I suggested a change to 1981, as current. Then a year ago I found detailed source, with photographic evidence, that it was alreay in service in 1980 and in brigade strenght no less. Another one stated that the transfer happened in the 70's.
No sources list SU-100s in frontline combat during the korean war but how do we know that there wasn't a company ot two in reserve somewhere in 1951-1953? The North koreans got several shipments of material in the Spring of 1951 when their army was rebuilt after the debacle which followed the Incheon landing, including items such as 152mm guns which had been almost non existent before. SU-100s were hardly restricted stuff by then.

Re: North Korea errors report
 

I don’t think they should be in the OOB unless there is some hard evidence that they were in reserve somewhere. Concord’s Tank Warfare in Korea looks at various Soviet shipments of armoured vehicles during the Korean War. It doesn’t mention the SU-100.

At the moment someone playing a Korean War game as the North Koreans can field SU-100s when they weren’t used in the war and when they probably weren’t in Korea at all.

SIPRI is like most other sources. Best when confirmed by a another source. It is interesting that Unit 462 has a 1968 start date. It matches the delivery completion date given by SIPRI.

Re: North Korea errors report
 

Just becasue a source doesn't mention something doesn't mean it wasn't there. Is "Concord’s Tank Warfare in Korea" THE definative source **everybody** turns to when the Korean war is mentioned ? There may have been only a handful.

I cannot ask the guy who originally built the OOB where he got the information these were available. For all I know he had great sources or just guessed but right now what I'm hearing is a lot of "I’m not sure" and "probably weren’t"

I found a source that says "The SU-85 remained in service longer in North and Vietnam" yet we don't even have the SU-85 in the game in NK OR NVA. Maybe someone would like to look into that issue ?? "PERHAPS" that 1951 SU-100 is supposed to be a SU-85 ??? That I would belive as the ammo would be common to the T-34/85

So you point is .... what ? becasue one date matches therefore this source is reliable to the tenth decimal place ?? Marcello already told you SIPRI isn't 100% reliable and I know there have been other instances we caught concerning Greek equipment. As you said it's best confirmed by another source then site the 1968 date when you said earlier "SIPRI Trade Register claims that the Soviets delivered 100 SU-100s to the North Koreans between 1965 and 1968"

So if they shipped them starting in 1965 why is 1968 right ? And because one start date in the game matches a SIPRI delivery completion date that means....??? What ?

I appreciate the info you provide but expect me to question it from time to time. I will be HAPPY to remove it when we get beyond "I’m not sure" and "probably weren’t"



Don

Re: North Korea errors report
 

There are 4 weapon slots in a unit.

4 gun off-map batteries should generally be represented by one 4 gun unit. That reduces the unit count by not having tiddly little 2 gun sections.

2x3 gun sections are only used for 6 gun batteries, since 6 into 4 won't go :)!

Andy

Re: North Korea errors report
 

There's a reason it's done this way on this OOB. I'll go over it in a PM

Don

Re: North Korea errors report
 

Ok, I think I have an idea: take that volume and check the references. If it uses at least some russian sources/research then it might be worth trusting it on this point. If it is all based on western reports then it might be be better leave it alone.

Re: North Korea errors report
 

I have done a bit of further research on this matter.
It appears that the north koreans may indeed have had some
SU-85Ms in service, albeit telling apart a SU-85M from a SU-100 in an old pic isn't a 100% thing.

If deemed worthwhile it could be included by adding a clone of unit 461 armed with weapon n. 90 85mm S-53 44, name change to SU-85M and increased ammo load to 48 rounds.