Re: MBT's
 

Probably numbers were not accounted for.
The barrel fired ATGMs take about as much space as a conventional round, it cannot be squeezed in "somewhere", the "somewhere" on a T-64/72/80 is very small.
I remember an east german tanker listing the items that were packed inside a T-72, it was nothing to write home about.
Just about 300 rounds for the 12.7mm could be carried internally, coax ammo load is a quarter of that which can be carried by the Abrams (though made up by the HE rounds and the Abrams coax storage isn't usually filled up 100% due to feed issues), only a very small quantity of food (they could not even squeeze in some soup cans as done on T-55s) etc.

Re: MBT's
 

Don and I did discuss this issue in the patch thread and it was a :doh: moment for me. Again though I only presented the "raw data" here and any specifics Don had issues with were addressed in the various (3) patch posts I submitted in that thread. The basic issue I had here was I didn't fully make the connection with weapons slots/ammo types to the total ammo load of a peculiar vehicle etc., something so obvious that I just missed it.
Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Japan finally to get the TK-X or TYPE-10 as it will be designated by the JDF. This is an update from the original posting off this site. The date for the game unit (Japan 022.)
This is considered the most advanced tank in the world with the Korean K-2 "BLACK PANTHER" a close second. It has an advanced armor system to rival it's bigger brethren and an advanced AP round that gives it's Japanese modified and made SB 120mm L-44 a much "bigger punch" then what they originally got from the Germans. The gun was slightly modified to support the highly classified new AP round. Except to say they have the round is all I can find out about it without getting into speculative blog thoughts. This was one of the R&D issues that has delayed this tank besides the faltering Japanese economy.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/tk_x.htm
This gets a pic:
Attachment 10849

Why now, see this on the Asian situation. Russia for instance will place one of the new French built MINSTREL Carriers off the Kurile Islands. China and Russia are turning up the heat for counties like Japan, S. Korea, India, Australia, others in the region and by default the U.S.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22049/

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

News of the past week. Had a few extra minutes.

1. IDF MERK fired upon and TROPHY defeats it.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22462/

2. TROPHY completes successful U.S. evaluations as the military seeks to improve it's armor protective systems.
http://defense-update.com/wp/2011030..._osd_test.html

3. UK continues to reduce it's armored forces. The SDSR cuts are going deeper then planned as will be shown in the Jet thread later. Once you start cutting sometimes it goes deeper than planned this seems to be the case now with the UK MOD.
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/la...1229_2_n.shtml

4. This is for you weapons guys, as good as any place to put this. The science of metallurgy moves on.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22570/

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

It's news of the last week, but is it an issue to be included on my next list? I thought also last fall or there abouts, there was some discussion of getting a decent picture of the ABV. Anyway here it is.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22666/
Pic:
Attachment 10889
USMC ABV from the article source.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

I'm good now here in the MBT world. First off I've avoided the blogs in general as opinions without the references presented in general are like ..., everyone has one, thus my allergy cold right now just isn't fun! There isn't much out there in the "main" so I did what I could. I offer the following based on my general background, an overview based on the refs and photos presented below.
1. I believe the M-2002 to be based on the T-62.
The lines just don't quite look right to me to be derived from the T-72 unless from an earlier version (How's that for CYA?)

2. It does have an IR sight I'm thinking similar to the M60A1 RISE/Passive, not sure that it's as good as the M60A3 TTS system though, which many thought was better than the first sites used on M1.

3. I'm going for 2 for 2 on the main gun (#1 was the 120mm L44 on the LEO 2A4M CAN.) it's a 115mm SB. That's my interpretation of the photos. It just has a "thinner" look to it. And note closely the photos of the T-62 in the first ref the imager mounted to the right of the main gun as well.

Those are my thoughts on the topic on the quick. And as always please take the time to read these first. As always the refs are presented so you can form your own thoughts on the matter.

A. On the T-62.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product165.html

B. The M-2002.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...prk/m-2002.htm
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor...p?armor_id=391
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...=POL&s=TOP
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/tr...1125_2_n.shtml
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m2002.htm

See the MBT patch posts this thread or the patch posts themselves for more info on items 2 and 3 above.

Pics:
Attachment 10903 Attachment 10904

Attachment 10905 Attachment 10906

Attachment 10907

Thank You for your time! Good Night!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Hi Pat. I do not know technical questions about armaments.
But it can be very interesting to learn.
You know a lot about this subject. You think that this tank has thermal sensors and laser sights?
I ask because designers have taken these features in the latest patch.

Re: MBT's
 

The changes were made on Marcello's recommendation and Marcello has done more work sorting the NK OOB out that anyone

There used to be two of those tanks, unit 25 and 26. There is NO change to the sights from the previous version , even the upgraded version, so IDK where you got the idea that had changed this release.. it was downgraded LAST release from what was there in previous releases but there has been no change to FC this release.

The TI version was deleted leaving unit 25 re-organized as an upgraded T-62. If you look at the post he made on the North Korean Errors report thread there is a very clear photo of the tank and there is no way it's based on the T-72 or T-90.

EVERY article on that tank is based solely on conjecture. This is our version and we've been *VERY* generous giving it a 125mm gun. I think Pat's correct and it's still using the 115mm gun. There is no reason to believe the North Koreans are anything more than what they appear to be. They are not hiding high tech up their sleeves


Don

Re: MBT's
 

Thanks for the compliment, however I'm no expert, I am however a "researcher" or "reporter" if you will (i.e. CM ARTY debate.). I agree it has an old tech laser range finder that was mounted on the T-62M1 but it also still retains the same
old tech IR searchlight system as I discussed in my previous post. This system is crude as compared to even the thermal sights that were available 15 to 20 years ago. And since many of you know I like my pictures and prefer apples to apples and not apples to oranges, here you go.
First up is the Russian T-62M1:
Attachment 10913

The North Korean M-2002 "POKPOONG-HO":
Attachment 10914

As you can see the laser range finder is the same as the Russian tank mounted on the mantle of the gun as is the IR searchlight.

More on the T-62 and variants:
http://www.armscontrol.ru/atmtc/Arms.../afvs.htm#t-62
http://www.armyrecognition.com/chars...my_russia.html
You'll have to use your translator software but it supports the equipment as discussed to this point.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ussia/t-62.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t-62-specs.htm
See the ref immediately above under "FIRE CONTROL". The short answer is yes it has both, crude by today's standards sort of the USA SHERMAN tanks going against a German TIGER, it was then and now would have to be a battle of numbers and maneuver for it to be successful especially with a 115mm with no ATGW weapons
(T-62M1 did not support this, however the T-62M did though without the laser finder.) that's what refs do!

If asked I do my best to get back.

Regards,
Pat :sick:

P.S.
A bit under the weather and since there were only a handful of "news of the last week" stories I'll post them next week. Have some Spring Trng Baseball to get to and If I'm not better by Monday CINCLANTHOME might respond in the following manner since I'm on vacation (Yes, Don I hear you sighing a sound of relief!?!):
Attachment 10915
You haven't lived until you've experienced one of those!

Re: MBT's
 

The current P'okpoong-ho in the game has the same RF rating as the Russian T-62M1 but with a much more optimistic assumption regarding it's fire control capabilities and it's Vision rating puts it on par with a T-62M1V so it's already pushing the reality envelope somewhat.

As for the gun I took Marcellos suggestion for calibre and comparing photos of a T-72's 125mm gun with some of the side shots of the NK tank it *could* be a 125 gun on the NK tank but it does have the look of a 115 between the extractor and the muzzle

Now that I have better photos there will be a better Icon for it in the next patch

Don

Re: MBT's
 

Sorry if I have not replied before but I lacked the time.
The recommendations I made for the last patch in regards to the
P'okpoong-ho were based not on the so called M-2002 which appeared in spring 2010 but on this vehicle.
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8236/3f420e58.jpg

It can be easily seen that it is a different line of development from M-2002: driver sits on the centerline like in a T-72, different armor configuration etc. The gun may be a 125mm, as opposite to the almost certainly 115mm of the M-2002.

Re: MBT's
 

Now in regards to the other issues. The design lineage of the
M-2002 is definitively the T-62, little doubt about. The design lineage of the above vehicle is not clear, it could be T-62 or T-72. Remember however that before 2010 we had very little and conflicting information on the new NK tank. There were for example vague reports about a Ch'onma-Ho V upgunned with 125mm gun and a T-90 based P'okpoong-ho.

In regards to fire control it is a safe bet that it is not top end stuff by current standard. However if you pay attention to both vehicles you can see what looks suspiciously like a meteorological mast for cross wind measurement. This suggest a level of sophistication in the FC higher than that fitted to T-62M1 and such, even if the laser rangefinder feeding it has not been miniaturized. The IR searchlight means only that no TI is fitted and that active illumination is felt to be necessary to get at least certain ranges. Soviet era tanks, from T-55 to T-80U all carried them but the night sights were different and had different ranges/capabilities.

Lastly I suggested the modifications to be based on the above vehicle rather than the M-2002 because I thought a 125mm tank was more useful and the M-2002 proper could wait some future version.

Re: MBT's
 

And the MANPADS shown can also be ignored, since there is no way to put EW (as ECM) on a non-AAA specialist unit class. (The EW field is used for CIWS etc on AFV unit classes).

Andy

Well I've been sitting on the fence with this information for almost three weeks now, wondering if I should pull the trigger on this or not. And thinking on the additional training courses I took outside of my career path and a saying we had in the submarine force at the time (Sorry not even going to try too be coy about that one!?!), well consider the trigger slowly squeezed as I'm going for a more accurate shot.

1. Further analysis of the North Korean POKOONG-HO (Storm) also referred to as the M-2002 which was the codename given given by the West when it's identification was confirmed in 2002. See the refs as posted in this thread Post #106 on page 11.

A. I'm still convinced it's carrying a 115mm main gun and as such have gone to the Russian tank gun manufacturers site. The largest gun they offer is a 120mm to meet NATO Specs for countries needing to upgrade their T-62 tanks upon entering into NATO. It would be similar to the IMI "short" MG251 120mm initially put in IDF MERK 3s and SABRA tanks. The Turks got the improved MG253 on the M60T to meet their requirements.
This first ref shows the MG251, note the cutaway drawing upper right showing the gun inside the slightly larger M60 turret and now imagine it inside the slightly smaller T-62 turret, it'll work as the Russians again have and are doing this also with a much lower recoil 120mm vs a standard 120mm. If the Russians could have fitted a 125mm in a T-62 I'm guessing they would have thus eliminating the need for the T-64 which did have a 125mm mounted and was the "bridge" to the T-72. The next two refs are from the Russian tank gun maker.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3608.html
See bottom, other info might be of value for you "designers".
http://www.artillery-mz.com/en/update/about/
About the guns.
http://www.artillery-mz.com/en/products/04/115/

2. That the turrets thus far shown from all sources to date belong to T-62 tanks there is no doubt about this. To this extent I joined an engineering website to get the following:

Attachment 10994 Attachment 10995
Attachment 10996 Attachment 10997

3. Differences we know:
T-62 T-72
Driver Left Side Center-line
TC Same Right Side
115mm smooth. 125mm compression rings with
segmented look.
Road wheels 5 6 [b]Here's the rub notice the pictures from the previous post this would suggust the
STORM is a hybrid of some sort. So here's the fork in the road BLOGS aside of the refs I normally use and other reputable refs about 20 - 25 total I found only one that says North Korea even has any more then a handful of T-72 tanks. I'm not even going down that road, however I believe the hull is a "stretched" one which we know has happened in design before most notably by the Turks with their M113A APC's. so now I give over to an expert as much as person can be on North Korea. As you know or should know JANE'S is considered probably the #1 source of military information out there better then some government sources, I know we had the newest Naval editions every year on board every boat and staff command I served at for what's worth. And not just anyone can contribute to them without being an expert in the field. This gentle still does that and has done so since 1984. So likes mix it up a little more. First his main site which could again be useful to some dealing with North Korean equipment etc. the rest concern the "STORM".
http://www.kpajournal.com/
http://www.kpajournal.com/storage/KPAJ-1-04.pdf
http://www.kpajournal.com/storage/KPAJ-1-06.pdf
http://www.kpajournal.com/storage/KPAJ-1-07.pdf
YES I READ ALL THESE REFS AS I NORMALLY DO, BUT THE LAST I PRESENTED THE FOLLOW UP ONE'S AS WELL TO BE FAIR AND BALANCED. I COULD HAVE EASILY HAVE STOPPED WITH THE FIRST ONE. YOU'LL UNDERSTAND IF YOU READ THEM THROUGH.

I don't think the "125mm" shown in some pictures seem right the "segment" and "ring" count compared to the Russian 125mm seems off and the gun length still seems doesn't look right in comparing the "flash suppressors". And let's not forget that gun mounted laser sight that only the T-62M1+ had. This is a vexing problem in the difference in pictures with exception of the turrets about the gun. Deception could be the answer they've been caught in that trap many times in the past. Regardless we know one thing for sure without numbers this tank is not a real threat to tanks like the K1+, K2 or M1A1+ tanks (I hope!?!).
T-72 check the gun, turret and hull you decide.
Pic:
Attachment 10998

Hey it's late, time for bed!!!!

Regards,
Pat

In MARCELLO'S POST #111 does that look a plug at the end of the gun? Here we go!?! I need some sleep- Good Morning or Night!!

I agree the gun looks more like a 115mm than a 125mm and it could very well be that a P'okpoong-ho is a further modified Ch'onma-Ho with a missle as this would be the next step in development instead of a great leap in a new direction.

My guess is the "plug" ( more a dust cover than a plug ) at the end of the gun is there to keep the gun clean on parade and/or dress it up a bit

All the KPA references come back Page Not Found

Don

Re: MBT's
 

Yes it is a further development as both are derived from the
T-62M1. Before logging in just now, I clicked on those sites and they came up, maybe the site was down? The one thing I have learned is that in dealing with North Korean equipment it seems worse then trying to find out something about the Chinese and that's still tough. Later I can now present an item concerning the South Korean K2, thank goodness!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

And few dispute this as far this vehicle is concerned.
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4...oonghom200.jpg


Actually reality is far more convoluted. The T-64 was not meant to be a bridge to the T-72, despite what the number in the designation might suggest. The T-64 was supposed to be the successor of the T-55 in the role of primary MBT for the soviet army. However such sophisticated, designed from scratch vehicle created several problems. The first was delays in the development. Then cost, reliability and producibility issues.
This forced the adoption of the T-62, basically an evolved T-55 modified to accept a bigger gun, as initial stopgap measure. While eventually some problems of the T-64 were fixed others could not be. This led designers to incorporate some of the T-64 features into an evolution of the T-62, which gave birth to the T-72.
A good evolutionary diagram of the design process that led from the T-62 to the T-72 can be found here.

http://www.t-72.de/html/versuchspanzer.html

As far upgunning goes I have seen prototypes and proposals of even T-55s upgunned with 125mm guns. Granted, they looked like a marriage made in hell but point being, integrating a 125mm gun in a design based off the T-62 is probably not impossible and in a sense it has already been done.
Now it is perfectly possible that the gun on the round turreted vehicle is still a 115mm. After all with the thermal jacket is hard to tell. Bear in mind however that there are several 125mm gun models around, I honestly do not remember if there are outer differences in the thermal jacket but it seems at least a possibility.

Re: MBT's
 

I'll agree with the last, and have "heard" of some of the same in the up gunning of those Russian tanks as well, the one that comes to mind for me though was the attempt I believe by the Danes to mount a 140mm on a LEO. Though I'm sure it would've been deadly but it just looked ungainly on a LEO for some reason.
:confused: Took a few minutes to go back and check...right continent, fairly close (That "horseshoes and hand grenades" saying comes to mind now!?!) country wise, but it was the Swiss and Germans. :doh: Swiss on the more recent Pz87WE-140 program and the Germans working on the 140mm under the KWS III Program. Look under the
"THE IMPROVED LEOPARD 2 - LEOPARD 2 A5 KWS II" section of the following for Germany:
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
Apparently a newer 140mm was revisited again in 1999 as well:
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2...-gun.kruse.pdf
The Swiss here:
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1645.html
Pics:
Attachment 11001 Attachment 11002

Have great end of the week!!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

I'm going to point out the obvious here but the turret of the tank in post 111 is not the same as the tank in post 117. Not even close so lets back up and identify each and go forward from there.

It would seem that we originally assumed the P'okpoong-ho was the M-2002 but now it seems the P'okpoong-ho is a development of the Ch'onma-Ho ( that would be the photo in post 111 ) and the M-2002 ( whatever it's called ) is something different and we don't have it in the game ATM

Don

Re: MBT's
 

Don will answer later-work! But in the quick refer to Post #106 or see below PO'OONG-HO and M-2002 are one in the same. M-2002 was the western "codename" assigned when indentified in 2002. It was easier for me to use that name at the time.
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/...1&rd=janes_com
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...72&c=POL&s=TOP
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...72&c=POL&s=TOP

Have to go!!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Well then.......if "PO'OONG-HO and M-2002 " are one in the same then perhaps you or Marcello can explain why photo in post 111 shows a totally different turret than the tank in the photo in post 117. That was the subject of my post.... those are not photos of the same tank so which one is the P'okpoong-ho ( or however you like to translate Korean in to English ). If it's the photo in 111 then in cannot be 117 , it's that simple.

If 117 is the P'okpoong-ho then 111 is NOT the P'okpoong-ho. All the changes we made this last release were based on 111 being the P'okpoong-ho and if the M-2002 and the P'okpoong-ho are one in the same then what is 117 ???? One has a cast turret the other welded.

What I suspect is the photo in 111 is an early Ch'onma-Ho and it was mis-identified as a P'okpoong-ho . If not then we are right back to the original observation...... 117 has a totally different turrent and if 111 is the P'okpoong-ho then what is 117 ?



Don

Re: MBT's
 

compare and contrast the turret in 117 with the Chinese Type 90. I would suggest that whatever 117 is, it shares a close relationship with things Chinese.



Don

Re: MBT's
 

1. I believe what is pictured in Post #111 is the
Ch'onma-Ho III (Pegasus or Sky Horse as all mods are referred too.). The Ch'onma-Ho I & II should be mods to the (Same as the
T-62A.) T-62M. The Ch'onma-Ho III is married more closely to the T-62M 1975 as pictured in Post #111. Ch'onma-Ho IV & V are based on the T-62M 1975 with add on ERA packages and improved armor and FC. The Ch'onma-Ho V is also rumored to have a 125mm main gun, like the P'OKPOONG (However you want to spell it depending on ref used.).
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor...p?armor_id=392
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/T-62.html

2. P'OKPOONG is a stand alone tank with no known variants as attributed to the Ch'onma-Ho above. The T-62M1 series was the first to have the turret bra we see on the P'OKPOONG-Ho as the refs from my last post (And as I suggested earlier as well.) suggust with a stretched hull. It is more likely as suggested by article and pictures derived more closely from the T-62M1 as noted first in Post #109. The second ref makes the further analysis that there is a resemblance to the Chinese
Type85-II (I don't see it.) and hull of the Romanian TR-85M1 and TR-800.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor...p?armor_id=391
http://www.kpajournal.com/storage/KPAJ-1-06.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...na/type-85.htm

3. I offer this separately, one it has the typical ammo load out for a T-62 regardless of type. Some might recognize I've used this site many times, it's a Russian site, well anyway I hope it makes a difference here!?!
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product165.html

Regardless I'm off to bed, so...

Спокойной ночи мои друзья!

С уважением,
Стандартный
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

OK, I think we may be narrowing this down.

Don

Re: MBT's
 

The driver closer (or on) the centerline and others details rule out this possibility. Whatever this vehicle is...

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8236/3f420e58.jpg
http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/16/manpad.jpg
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/323/nkmanpad.jpg

it is not a straight T-62 knock off. Still based upon perhaps but not really a north korean T-62M 1975

These are supposed to be "Ch'onma-Ho III/IV" .

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/347...opaganda15.jpg

Former soviet up armored T-62 for comparison.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/915...onalarmy9r.jpg

Clearly they have tanks that are similar in conception to the
T-62M1. But the two new tanks types shown during the last parade are somewhat different.

Re: MBT's
 

Not necessarily disagreeing with the last, but I think what the refs and all this have shown is...

1. We are probably dealing with a 115mm vs. a 125mm main gun.

2. That the tanks are, and in some cases are heavily modified versions of the 5 different or so T-62 tanks made during it's production run I feel is an acceptable conclusion based on all the refs submitted thus far. Anything else would have serious ramifications to the game had it been proved these were based on the T-64 or T-72 tanks in both offensive power (125mm, FC etc.) or defensive attributes also associated with those tanks as compared to the T-62 line overall.

Got to work and it might hit 90+ today, what Spring!?!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Let's get back to the photo in post 117 shall we ?

Here's what we know

It is North Korean
It is NOT in any way the same turret as is shown in post 111

Maybe Kims messing with the West's heads by putting two different turrets on the same hull and sending them out on parade but if the photo in post 111 is indeed a P'okpoong-ho ... what is 117 ?

Don

Re: MBT's
 

Hulls are definitively not the same.
Round turret tank uses centerline driver.
http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/9...t201043eun.jpg

I bet this is what was referred as "Ch'onma-Ho V upgunned with 125mm gun" in the rumors a few years ago. Clearly however it is not just a Ch'onma-Ho III/IV with bigger gun. At a minimum it was substantial redesign, if not a new vehicle altogether.

This one would be the M-2002/whatever.
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4...oonghom200.jpg

Note the driver position.

Why they developed two designs is unclear but even the soviets made a mess with the
T-64/72/80 development. Maybe the square turret type is a more conservative development focused on improving armor protection, while the round turret type is the more radical design featuring improved firepower, with all the difficulties mastering the 125mm gun and related systems would entail. But it is pure speculation.

I think I've figured things out, so bear with me here.
1. Remember in Post #114 I talked about road wheels this will be important.
2. Also all the refs I've submitted and that have thus far been submitted have the origins of Cho and Po as the T-62 are we agreed here?
3. There is no record by reliable sources to indicate the North Koreans got any other newer tanks from Russia before relations broke down and NK turned to China for support. NK did receive full production licensing for the T-62 (For all variants.) from Russia as well as the production capacity to build them.
4. We are dealing with some mislabeled photos from different sources it looks like.
5. Again there are no known variants for the Po.
6. We know there are five variants of the Cho.
7. I haven't used those extra skills in a very long time as mentioned before, but after reading the last post and reviewing the pictures I found some differences.
8. Is as important as any we must remember with #3 above that NK has depending on whose number you wish to reference, they have from 1800 to 2600 T-62 tanks of all types total. So we will see standard tanks in basic design that will be slightly modified and updated from the base Russian models.

Ready:
A. Post #117 is the Po see the pic below from Post #106 top right tank. a. Note smoke grenade layout 2 slightly forward of the back 2 forming a "box". b. On the right forward corner, forward of the smoke grenades, an object resembling a "horn". c. Note the front top hull area. d. My picture submitted in Post #106 & #109 (And below.) for the Po match #117 and further shows the stretched hull indicated from my refs (JANES etc. so on and so forth.) with six road wheels.
Pics:
Attachment 11027 Attachment 11028

B. I want everyone to look at the same items as in A. above this is a mislabeled pic from many sources describing this tank as the Po. I think it's the Cho V. At a GLANCE and as I presented it to the left of the Po pic from Post #106, it looks like the same tank. Again I hit on the road wheels, there are
only five of them plus the differences of no "horn", dis-chargers are in a vertical line up and the front hull is different notice the replacement trend pieces, single headlight versus duel ones for the Po. Below I have re-posted what I now believe is the Cho V with the add on turret armor as compared to the Russian T-62M1. I did not relabel the pictures to illustrate the above point about them.
Pics:
Attachment 11029 Attachment 11030

C. Marcellos own posting (#125) identifies our other tanks as the Cho III/or IV from I assume his ref the way he wrote it up, so we all should be good there. Photo 4 are the later T-62 tanks that had the add on ERA and these are placed exactly as they were by the Russians on the, and please don't beat me up here, T-62E that was used in Afghanistan I believe, just Google it or something. Photo five looks just like the Russian T-62M1 as modified slightly by NK. But focus on the turret lines.
It could be a straight up T-62M1 or Cho V, hard to tell without more of a frontal view.

D. Understand I'm in no way trying to say these are the same as their Russian counter parts except for many of the older tanks. Some items I've read suggust the "break" from the Soviet era tank with NK upgrades occurred at the Cho III (And I don't care to debate this point personally just passing along a consensus of what I read.). That the Po is a further development and more capable tank then the Cho V I think is a logical conclusion.

E. I don't know what more I can do here, I wish I could have spotted these latest differences in the photos sooner-sorry. I've given the best possible refs I can to include JANES etc. which support most of what I've submitted especially concerning the Po. I think I'll take some of those "over sight" ARJUN tanks in there and just kill a bunch of Cho and Po tanks. I'm ready to move onto the following:
Attachment 11033

CINCLANTHOME is going to have my...for this if I'm not up to greet the granddaughter in the morning!! Good Night well missed that, Good Morning!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Attachment 11029

Personally I have the impression that this is just a III/IV with added armor screens. If you look closely at the coax port area you can see a V chaped armor section surrounding it, not well covered by the armor screen. This is identical to the same section in the picture of the III/IV. I would guess it is a modest improvement of the III/IV, perhaps a retrofit of existing vehicles.

Re: MBT's
 

Referring to post 129 , in the the first set of photos the left image seems to show a different turret than the right with the left seeming to show straighter front turret armour and a welded turret side but on closer examination when enlarged the "straight" effect to the right of the drivers head appears to be the result of the compression effects of a powerful telephoto lens and these are indeed, the same tank.


Sooooo...... if this is indeed a variation of the same tank, as it appears to be, which one is the P'okpoong-ho and if it's the photo of the tank we based the last changes on why doesn't it have add on armour ?


Don

Re: MBT's
 

All I can say for sure is that the photo on the right is without a doubt from the references submitted to date the Po. If nothing else, we know the Po is a stretched version mod of the T-62 line, refer to the road wheels 6 vs. 5 for the other tank which I thought to be the Cho V. I married the photo on the left to the Po one on the right in Post #129, Section "Ready...", and Para A. as listed because the turrets did look the same to me except for the coloration issue. The only issue I had of any minor concern was I couldn't see the hull to get a front view lower down and get a road wheel count as noted in the beginning of that Post and in Para B. The photos I've posted were taken in Oct. 2010.

So...

1. The photo on the right is the Po, I'm 100%+ on that, even the refs that think the Po has a 125mm state it has a stretched hull.

2. If we assume the photo on the left isn't the Po turret the only thing that makes sense is that what I think is the Cho V (Para B.) must be the Cho IV as Marcello suggests (I think it's still newer than the Cho III-sorry.). I will concede that point, if done the logical conclusion is that the hull has to belong to the Cho V.

3. Again only the Po has the stretched hull, thus six road wheels.

4. I'll present this don't know if it helps, but it also shows the left photo as the Po.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...FIjLgQf_3LzLCA

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Change #2. to read "turret" vice "hull" last sentence. And to clear up Marcello thought the other tank from Para B. to be either the
Cho III or IV in Post #129.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

.....and to be very clear exactly what post and photo are you refering to when you write ." The photo on the right is the Po". I was refering to post 129 the first set of photos. I really am not sure which one you are referring to. my post or 129 or one other

Don

Re: MBT's
 

Post #129, first set (top most) of photos, one on the right, full tank shot, road wheel count 6, is the Po.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

OK, don't want to ASSUME..... ;)

Don

Re: MBT's
 

Don,
Not to worry that "word" has bitten us all in the as.ume at one time or another.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

The next issue is the gun. Why stretch the hull by at least 2 feet unless you are putting a bigger turret on it to hold a bigger gun.

Don

Re: MBT's
 

I really thought that gun issue was settled. Back to
Post #129 pictures, let's please ignore the top left non - full shot one, except for some "cosmetic" differences the turrets are the same as are the guns, all views are very similar in regard to angle of approach and size of the photos between the Po (TR),
Cho (LL) and Russian T-62M1 (LR) or for that matter any other pictures submitted or refs including again even Russian tank gun maker. That's a 115mm.

From a couple of the refs we're talking about a 2 meter increase in length. Again this is supposed to be their most advanced tank to date. These aren't my notions only but come from reading from a myriad of reference sources for this forum and my own personal readings from my modest "library". So...

1. Yours is a very good point, however I've noted my thoughts already.

Here's other possibilities...
2. Larger engine installed to increase speed and generate more power in both torque (Terrain is an issue here more so then in Eastern and Western European battlefields the T-62 was designed to fight in.) and literally to power the additional AC and power supplies needed for the more modern combat systems carried on board.

3. As noted above Power and distribution panels (Now we're talking my shh...) and cooling systems (Fans, chill water (Yes they come that small and smaller.) systems both or stand alone but, one of them for sure to support updated FC, Targeting and other newer on board computer systems. Starting to fill up that space now but there's more.

4. Improved NBC systems.

5. Fire suppression system(s).

6. Increased fuel capacity some refs submitted suggested this as a possibility as well makes sense with number #1.

7. Along with #5 increased ammo stowage also hinted at.

8. Added road wheels (Means added suspension.) with a stretched hull provides for a more stable gun platform, ride, mobility, obstacle clearing and maneuverability coupled with #1.

9. We've seen this before without necessarily adding road wheels but slightly extending the hulls by degrees to accommodate larger engines for most of the reasons above and more. Look at the following examples and think about the improvements made in combat efficiency in transition from the M-60, M-60A1, M-60A3,
M60A3 TTS, IDF Ma-BACH/SABRA series and finally M60T. Or if I remember 750hp to 1200hp (Might be higher for M60T don't remember.) And the final example was the engine upgrade (TIGER Program.) for the early M1 & M1A1 tanks to increase performance and support system upgrades.

10. How about that K2 at the bottom of Post #129? If I ever get to it!?!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

AFAIK proper air conditioning in relation to combat systems is usually provided only to support the TI sight and these tanks are apparently not fitted with TI.
The remaining systems, can easily do without although naturally cooling systems are needed for the engine and such heat generating systems. While Korea can get hot in summer it is not a desert and even in that case heavy AFVs are typically given little or no AC.
I suspect that the extra roadwheel set in the new "boxy" tanks is to support the extra weight, largely due to the armor increase. Probably same reason the dedicated Black Eagle hull got the seventh roadwheel set.
Maybe they were designed to be protected against 105mm ammo or such, though increase in fuel/armor may have been included as well.

Re: MBT's
 

It does seem like a lot of effort just to make a slightly more advanced target for 120mm guns

Don

Re: MBT's
 

Yes it does, but I think most of us have seen worse from our diverse backgrounds. I think as suggested and I believe Marcello was saying as well, we just need to "KISS" when it comes to the Po. Bigger engine, faster, more maneuverable, more mobile, longer range, increased power generation, up-armored and maybe more ammo. These things again make sense given the terrain there and with it's neighbors. The only unknown for me is not what we can see but, what we can't. Considering the Po is NKs "most advanced" tank, have they managed to keep up appearances but managed to improve the internal components, say as an example, the gun mounted laser range finder to make it more capable? This is again the only question for me concerning Po. And unless someone can get one of these tanks we might never know, however given Marcello's avatar I nominate him to go in there and get us one, if you watched the show you'd understand why I volun...nominated Marcello!?! I'd go but I have to work later today-sorry!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

The south korean army has about 500 tanks equipped with 120mm guns and still 1900 or so K1 and M48 fitted with 105mm.
The K2 will eventually displace the M48, but not exactly overnight and the 105mm K1 are going to stay. There are some Abrams in the USFK but overall the 120mm tanks are probably going to be a third or less of the total tank force for the time being. Clearly a tank proof against 105mm guns would still have an advantage in many tactical situations.

Re: MBT's
 

Well consider this. If the PO was designed to take on 105mm rounds what we have modeled in the game needs more armour before it can fullfil it's role.

ANYTHING we do in regards to this tank is going to an "educated WAG" The best pen from a SK M48A5K is 45. The best pen from a K1A1 is 85. If Kim figures most of his potential oppositing is M48's and this tank can stand up to them then I need to boost front hull and turret armour up by 20%. I have no problem doing that assuming we can agree that is prudent.

That would put a PO just a touch above a T-72M1 in armour ( or a touch below a T72B when reactive is applied ) which may ( or not..) be reasonable

Don

Re: MBT's
 

.....and HOW MANY Po's are there realistically ?? I'll be wildly optimistic and say it's considerably below the total of 120 mm armed tanks in the SK armoury and even if it's 3 or 4 hundred ( which it won't be ) the SK solution to the 120 /105 gun "imbalance" is to adopt the "Firefly" model of tank distribution and there will always be a 120 around to slice and dice the PO's.

The NK strength is arty, not tanks. The Po seems more of a propaganda exercise.

Don

Re: MBT's
 

Well, if you recall Russia kept buying tiny amounts of T-80s and T-90s back in the 90's even when the economy was in the gutter.
Ukraine buys the odd modernized T-64 from Morozov every other year. Iran has its indigenous AFV program that will have replaced the existing fleet by the 22nd or 23rd century etc.
Why are such things done? Various reasons: attempts to keep production lines open (which at least in the T-90 case paid off handsomely), bureaucratic inertia, the idea that limited modernization is better than no modernization at all, propaganda etc.
That being said even a single "èlite" tank battalion could make a difference in, let's say, a coup attempt.

Re: MBT's
 

The Po tanks to date are assigned to the 105th Seoul Ry-Kyong Guards Div. a very famous unit known as the 1st Armored Div. that made it's mark during the Korean War. They are believed to operate ~250 Po tanks. It is not known of any further production except for replacement units, remember this program has been around quite a few years. I re-offer the following Para 4 down for current discussion is representative of other refs submitted except maybe to extent of up armored the Po is:
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor...p?armor_id=391

Jane's 25 Nov. 2010 reports that of the K1 tanks, 484 are
KIA1 120mm variants. K2 production was to reach ~680 tanks, cut to 500, cut again to possibly only 100. However the number appears to be back possibly ~500 again due to recent incidents with NK and the surge in China's defence spending as I've been regularly "reporting" on. From Post #120:
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/...1&rd=janes_com
Will have more on this later this weekend-I hope!?!

For an excllent read on the Korean War see THE COLDEST WAR by David Halberstam. Besides the "war" it covers the political issues as well in depth and sets the tone and understanding for todays relationship between China and North Korea and Russia and the U.S. interests in the area and it's roots.

Have to get ready for work have a good day all!!
Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Finally made it to the news of LW+!

1. First up the ARJUN finally gets deployed to it's AOR with the 75th Tank Regiment one two regiments equipped with ARJUN.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news112960.html

2. Concerning the K2 specifically S. Korea's UNIT 025 & 033.
A. Is the CIWS (Close In Weapons System) the same as the APS (Active Protection System), I think yes? Shots are right @ 2.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23219/

B. Is the Gatling gun shown in the picture below mounted on the units above, and does it look larger then a 7.62mm?

C. The news is after a year of delays in dealing with power pack issues (This issue also had effected the K21 as well.) the K2 could be restarting production this year or next. Not recommending any change in fielding date yet just not enough info yet. Something I'm watching. Will provide one of three that say production for this year and one for next. Jane's would put the number of K1 tanks at ~1050, see last post on K2 numbers also from Jane's and a couple of others.
http://articles.janes.com/articles/J...rea-South.html
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...92&c=FEA&s=SPE
Reading the above it seems like some tanks are already built before production was stopped just awaiting installation of the power packs and completion of the operational tests on going through August w/o reading too much between the lines.
So it looks like JAN. 2013 or sooner maybe. Prototypes are at around 25 units of which some might be early production units.
For GP:
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor...p?armor_id=289
Pic:
Attachment 11074

3. Thailand looking for tanks (200 Medium type.) and other newer equipment. These new tanks once identified would replace the
M-41 based STINGRAY tanks.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/art...pons-purchases.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product929.html
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/...light_tank.htm

Pic:
Attachment 11075 Attachment 11076

4. Say goodbye to 60 Dutch LEO's and more from "DID".
http://www.nisnews.nl/public/080411_2.htm

FOLLOW UP HERE! :capt:

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

I found this video, showing both north korean tank types the discussion has been about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHywk...eature=related

Re: MBT's
 

News from LW+

1. To Marcello's video in the previous post first THANKS! and second 115mm all the way.

2. Back to the ARJUN this next site has listed it as NEW to their equipment list. It has a little more info on armor type and capabilities. Though it still doesn't disclose which country was quoted as touting the ARJUN as one of the worlds best tanks from the earliest posts I submitted, I think the field is narrowed down considerably from my much earlier thoughts on the subject. Elbit of Israel and KMW of Germany apparently played a much larger role in the development of the ARJUN then was publicly revealed earlier. I think we have enough information to agree that at the very least it's a very capable tank in it's own right especially after the way it performed against the T-90S last year. ARJUN MKII will be developed with 95 new upgrades.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/arjun-mbt/

3. Related to the above, the ARJUN MKII is on track to begin trials this June.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news107583.html

4. DAPA South Korea giving indigenous engine maker until October to fix the problems or the engines and transmissions are coming from Germany. K2 pushed back to 2013 now because of the technical issues involved to date.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news114282.html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/k1/

5. Haven't had a chance to check if it's in already but, Ukraine to field the new STUGNA-P ATGW.
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110420/163616103.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/ukrai...identification

6. Dutch disband 2 LEO Tank Battalions due to budget cuts.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23767/

TRACK FOR DATES! :capt:

Regards,
Pat