North Korea errors report
 

The following units should be deleted.
Units 66-602-603-604 : BMP-3
Unit 22: T-80U
On the basis of available info never delivered to North Korea , only to the South.
Sale of T-80Us and BMP-3s to North Korea is not reported in any available source, such as SIPRI, available russian news etc.. Further since such systems were not available for export before the end of the Cold war they could only have come after, when North Korea simply did not have the money to purchase significant amount of items like high end tanks. The only russian AFVs purchased since 1992 have been a small (10-30 depending on the source) batch of BTR-80A and maybe a single T-90, the latter presumably for evaluation and limted reverse engineering. Some additional stuff (some T-72s according to some rumors) might have been purchased in clandestine deals but almost certainly no T-80Us.
A summary of the russian-north korean arms trade can be found at the following link.
http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/2-2007/item4/item2/
Further...
http://www.ieas.or.kr/vol16_2/16_2_chronology.pdf
In a well publicized move the south korean units with russian AFVs, previously held in the rear, were deployed along the border with North Korea. Presumably it was to score cheap political points against the North, something along the lines of “See, the Russians have given us state of the art of the equipment, they don’t give a crap about you anymore ”. If the North koreans had the very same vehicles one would expect that the fear of fratricide would outweight the actual and symbolical contribution of a single tank battalion. It’s not like South Korea is that desperate for tanks with more than a thousands of K series tanks in service.
Unit 13: T-55AM1
Never observed or noted as being delivered All T-54/55/59s shown in pics are in vanilla configuration, give or take a 14.5mm AAMG in place of the DShK. It also seems logical that any expensive modernization efforts (add on armor, LRFs etc.) would have been concentrated on the T-62 in the attempt to keep the best tank available competitive with the K1/K1A1.

Unit 18: T-62MV
Never observed. Unit 583 Ch'onma-Ho IV covers the uparmored T-62/Ch'onma-Ho adequately
Unit 262 : TO-62
Never existed as discussed in the thread about Iraq
Unit 266 : IS-III
IS-2s were delivered (60 units reported delivered in 1961-1962 for example), but no IS-III apparently.

Re: North Korea errors report
 

I agree.

The most advanced DPRK tank that I have ever seen pictured is the Ch'onma-Ho:

http://www6.atwiki.jp/namacha/m/plug...=on&serial=367

However, it is rumoured that one DPRK armoured division (the 109th Tank Division defending the capital Pyongyang) is partially equipped with a locally manufactured ‘mystery’ tank called the P'okpoong-Ho (unofficial ROK/U.S. designation M2002). It has been compared with the T-72, T-80 and T-90 at different times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P'okpoong-Ho

Re: North Korea errors report
 

Thier best confirmed tank is the Ch'onma-Ho III/IV (the sources disagree on differences betweeen III and IV marks).

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

It seems rather similar to the T-62M/M1 (note, this particular one did not get the glacis add-on)

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

It is interesting to see (in this and other pics) that, if I am not mistaken, the ERA is used mostly to cover a secondary area such as the turret side. The glacis is naked and the front turret has only few bricks. Granted, the turret front and the glacis seem to incorporate some sort of composite armor (BDD probably, like T-55AM/T-62M1) but it would suggest they do not put a great deal of faith in their ERA (if it is actually ERA).
Overall it is probably marginally better armored (in addition to ERA and side skirt the passive composites could be better integrated on new production vehicles, unlike the add-ons on existing ones) than the T-62M1 but otherwise quite similar.

If they have anything better they have yet to show it. I would not be surprised if the "anything better" consists only of prototypes, propaganda and defectors hearsay.

Re: North Korea errors report
 

In KNDR tanks many errors and what in game not describe like real tanks. I find few data in russian:
http://offtop.ru/spanther/v6_661251__.php

Korean tank Pokphunho (US- M-2002) is total wrong. This tank analog russian T-90 and 1 from best tanks of the world. Only 1 tank in world would be best then NK Popkhunho - it's future russian T-95.
Armor NK tank like armore T-90, tank have 125mm gun, 14,5mm AA MG with AP shells. Tank can fire in mounting in speed, but South Korea tank K-2 can not fire in mounting in speed. Observation equipment NK tank like in T-90. FC NK tank best, then FC SK tank K-2.

KNDR tank Chhonmaho-5 receive 125mm gun. -4 receive new FC equipment like T-72AB, -3 receive 14,5mm AA MG and active armore, -2 receive 12,7mm AAMG, -1 KNDR copy soviet T-62A.

In it moment all.

Re: North Korea errors report
 

The P'okpoong-Ho, if it exists, is at best a poor man T-90 which in turn is not (and was never meant to be, in any case) anything more than a cost effective "good enough" interim tank pending the development of the next generation (T-95, Molot etc.).
As for the rest it requires quite a bit of suspension of disbelief to buy that a country with the economy and tech level of North Korea could have managed to produce a vehicle more capable than the K2 which was designed from scratch at about the same time the nortk koreans were dying of starvation by the hundreds of thousands. If you are saying that the K-2 cannot shoot on the move, well there are videos of it doing just that.

It is not that clear actually.According to some sources Ch'onma-ho II for example is supposed to be the one with laser rangefinder but no extra armor.
Ch'onma-ho I might be a KV-1s type of deal, a T-62 built with thinner plates, at least judging from the pictures.
14,5mm AAMG seem to be a common feature across the board.

Re: North Korea errors report
 

Unit 463: Type 89 SPG
It should be deleted
These were rare chinese vehicles, produced in limited numbers and never exported. No source reports sale of them to North Korea. Even if they are there as hypothetical chinese reinforcements there are better candidates.
Sources
www.army-guide.com
http://www.sinodefence.com

Unit 582: Type 62-II
It should be deleted.
Even if North Korea managed to put their hands on some thermal sights they would be used on recon vehicles or their best MBTs, certainly not used as gunsigths on some obsolete light tank.

Unit 42: Type 56 SPAA
To be deleted.
It is redundant (BTR-40 clone), besides the chinese Type 56 is the Zpu-4, not zpu-2.

Unit 47: Type 88K SPAA
To be deleted.
It does not seem to correspond to any reported system in NKPA service.

Some units to be added instead

1) ZSU-23-4 unit 402 from russian OOB
Availability dates 1/1971-12/2020
Source SIPRI

2) M1992 SPAA
Basically a ZSU-23-4 derivate with twin 30mm instead of quad 23mm
Availability dates 1/1990-12/2020
Source: pictures
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/4605/spaag.jpg
Also
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...1992-spaag.htm

3) M-1977 122mm
This unit could be made in the following way:
a) Import unit 106 Type 70 122mm from the chinese OOB;
b) Arm it with weapon n.110 122mm D-30 FH;
c) Reduce speed a bit, let’s say to 20;
d) Rename it M-1977 122mm;
e) Availability dates 1/1977-12/2020.
Sources: pictures
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/1484/spa.jpg
Also
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...m-1977-122.htm


4) A clone of the above M-1977, but with the following changes:
a) Class 39 SP Gun;
b) Weapon n. 97 100mm 2A29 65 as armament;
c) Appropriate loadout and FC ratings for a tank destroyer;
Source: pictures
http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/8159/assaultx.jpg

It could be used to fill the gap in the formations left by deleting unit 463 Type 89 SPG.

Re: North Korea errors report
 

These sources also confirm the North Korean use of the ZSU-23-4: Military Technology’s World Defence Almanac (1988), the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) website¹ (Link), GlobalSecurity.Org (Link), the U.S. military’s North Korea Primer* and Jane’s Land-Based Air Defence (2002). Jane’s claimed that the KPA had 100+ in 2002.

There may be several versions of the M-1992 SPAAG. The Military Balance (IISS) lists two versions. One with twin 23 mm guns and one with twin 37 mm guns. Jane’s Land-Based Air Defence (2002) and the latest update of Jane’s Online claim the same. The North Korea Primer has three versions – with twin 23 mm, 30 mm and 37 mm guns. The FAS website (Link) and GlobalSecurity.org (Link) claim the same.

Jane’s Land-Based Air Defence has a small photo of the M-1992 with 23 mm guns. It looks the same as

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/4605/spaag.jpg

Jane’s says that the M-1992 with 37 mm guns does not have a gun dish. As far as it is known, it does not have an onboard radar fire control system.

There may be two versions of the M-1977 SPH. One with a 122 mm D-30 gun and one with a 152 mm D1 gun. The Military Balance (IISS), Jane’s Armour and Artillery (2002), FAS website (Link), GlobalSecurity.org (Link) and North Korean Primer all mention the two versions.

Marcello, where did you find this? I haven't seen it before.



¹ Warning: The FAS KPA webpage may have been updated back in 1999.

* The North Korea Primer was prepared by the Virtual Information Center, United States Pacific Command in 2005. It can be downloaded from here:

http://merln.ndu.edu/merln/mipal/rep...mer03Nov05.doc

P.S. The publicly released U.S.M.C. North Korea Handbook of 1997 features some OOB info. It can be downloaded from here:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nkor.pdf

Re: North Korea errors report
 

I should have mentioned that, it was in some thread on Military photos . net, like most others images.
Usually I would post links to pictures, to give proper credit, but since most users there seem to use image hosting services which keep the images on for a limited time I usually save whatever I can.

About the vehicle itself.
Initially I thought it was an other self propelled artillery complex. However I was told on tanknet that the gun was an antitank weapon (possibly a MT-12 lookalike). Further, on several recently published OOBs ( The North Korean People's Army By James M. Minnich for example) there is mention of direct fire SPG units. SU-100 or SU-76 are listed as equipment but I suspect that the vehicle in the above picture is what is actually used, at least in the first line units.


I have some doubt about Jane's claim. If you are copying a
ZSU-23-4 there should not be any reason to replace the quad
23mm with a twin 23mm. The gun complex should not be the hardest part to manufacture, even for the North Koreans, and there are not more powerful cartridges available in the 23mm range than the ones already used on the ZSU-23-4. So you cannot have a more powerful twin 23mm guns and the quad 23mm is already barely good enough. A twin 30mm would make more sense as it would have some extra range.

Aren't they talking about this by chance?

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4163/spaag37mm.jpg
In this case source is www.china-defense.com

Re: North Korea errors report
 

If Jane’s are to be believed it is a M-1985 37 mm SPAAG manufactured in the ‘80s. There is another version of the M-1985 armed with a single 57 mm S-60 gun. Also produced in the ‘80s was the M-1986 SPAAG armed with twin 23 mm guns.

Jane’s can be wrong sometimes. I’ve learnt that first hand. They could be right though. The M-1992 may have replaced the earlier SPAAGs with twin 23 mm and 37 mm guns in the early ‘90s. The North Koreans may have used what they had available – and they had shedloads of 23 mm ZU-23-2s and 37 mm guns. My own view is that they may have produced a twin 30 mm version as well. Maybe later on. I’m not sure whether the DRPK had 30 mm guns in the early ‘90s. These guns were stuck onto versions of the standard NK AT-S full-tracked chassis that has been used as a platform for all manner of guns (howitzers, AAA and coastal artillery).

Several other countries and companies have developed or produced SPAAGs armed with the ZU-23-2. They did it because they had lots of them to spare and because it was a proven weapon.

Oerlikon Contraves have developed an improved 23 mm round for the ZU-23 that has a greater velocity and longer effective range. There is a huge market for it because the gun is used by more than 60 armies around the world. The North Koreans probably don’t have the round though – unless they bought it from an unscrupulous third party.

After flipping the picture the right way around and comparing it with images of NK SPGs I’d say that the chassis is a AT-S. The other elements – faces, uniforms, red signal flags and vehicle numbering – also fit.

I’m not sure about the gun. The KPA is said to use several guns in an antitank role – such as the M1944 100 mm FG, D-44 85 mm FG and D-48 85 mm ATG. It looks a bit like a ‘Rapira’ – but there may be other Russian and Chinese guns that are theoretical candidates.

The KPA could have a ‘mystery’ SPATG in service. I would be more convinced if I knew where the picture originally came from.

Edit: I think the Minnich tome may have been written before the U.S. military's North Korea Primer. The organizational charts – from my quick flick through – seem to be from five years earlier: 2000. It does mention the use of SU-100 SPGs by antitank battalions though.

Re: North Korea errors report
 

If anything else they had access to the NR-30, GSh-301 and
GSh-30-2 on their MIG-21/29 and SU-25; MIG-29 and SU-25 were available since the late 80's. This means they probably (I cannot be sure but it seems reasonable) had set up the tooling to make 30x165mm ammo and barrels at least and the ability to reverse engineering the whole weapon.
I could see they might have wished to arm their few radar equipped SPAAs with something better than standard 23mm and 37mm weapons.

That its why I said lookalike. Maybe it's a chinese gun, I still haven't found pictures of the 100mm type 74.

Re: North Korea errors report
 

Unit 11: T-54B
1) Weapon n. 54 12.7 DShK AAMG should be replaced with weapon 4714.5 ZPU-1 AAMG
Replacement of the 12.7mm AAMG with the 14.5mm AAMG seems to be a standard feature for North Korean AFVs
2) Loadout could be changed to 15 HE 13 AP 6 HEAT

Unit 12: T-55A
FC should be increased to 7 (see unit 10 T-55A in Russian OOB)

Unit 14: T-62
1) Weapon n. 54 12.7 DShK AAMG should be added in slot 3
2) Availability date changed to 1/1970-12/1994
This would be used to represent the imported and non modified T-62
Source: SIPRI

Unit 15: T-62M
1) Weapon n. 54 12.7 DShK AAMG should be replaced with weapon 47 14.5 ZPU-1 AAMG
2) Loadout could change to 20 HE 10 Sabot 10 HEAT (standard T-62 loadout)
3) Name should be changed to Ch'onma-Ho
This would represent both early production Ch'onma-Ho and refitted imported T-62s. Replacement of the 12.7mm AAMG with the 14.5mm AAMG seems to be a standard feature for North Korean AFVs.

Unit 16: T-62M1
1) Initial availability date changed to 1/1985
2) Name change to Ch'onma-Ho II
3) Weapon n. 54 12.7 DShK AAMG should be replaced with weapon 47 14.5 ZPU-1 AAMG
4) Loadout change to 20 HE 10 Sabot 10 HEAT (standard T-62 loadout)

Here is a somewhat younger Dear Leader examining one of them
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/1947/chonmahoii.jpg

Another picture together with the others variants of the family
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/1438/...series1gh5.jpg

Unit 583: Ch'onma-Ho IV
1) Initial availability dates changed to 1/1990
2) Weapon n. 54 12.7 DShK AAMG should be replaced with weapon 47 14.5mm ZPU-1 AAMG
3) Loadout change to 20 HE 10 Sabot 10 HEAT (standard T-62 loadout)
As it can be observed from the pictures posted the tank is equipped with a 14.5mm AAMG. It was shown during a parade in 1992so 1/1990 seems a good guess for initial date.

Unit 17: T-62MK
It should be deleted, such version was never in service as far it is known .

Unit 19: Type 59
Availability date changed to 1/1973-12/2020
HE load could be increased to the expense of AP rounds as that would be more in line with known combat loads.

Unit 20: Type 59-I
It should be replaced with a clone of unit 19 Type 59 with the following changes:
1) Availability dates 1/1985-12/2020
2) Weapon n. 230 12.7mm 54T AAMG replaced by weapon 47 14.5 ZPU-1AAMG
Replacement of the 12.7mm AAMG with the 14.5mm AAMG seems to be a standard feature for North Korean AFVs.

Picture of refitted Type 59 on the march
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/8666/type59.jpg

Unit 34 BRDM-2 Susang
VIRSS should be deleted (no such countermeasure is reported to be in service)
Initial availability date should be changed to 1/1991

Weapon n. 155: Susang Po ATGM
HEAT penetration should be increased to 46 at least.

Currently it has a lower penetration than weapon n. 146 9M14 Malutka (40 vs 46). According to SIPRI North Korea has manufactured Sagger ATGMs under license and this Susang Po is described by nearly all sources as Sagger variant, presumably one of the later ones with SACLOS guidance, which is also consistent with the greater accuracy rating in the game (70 vs 60). Warhead penetration should not be inferior to that of an early variant.

Source for most pictures is militaryphotos.net as usual.

Re: North Korea errors report
 

.....any chance this is going to turn into another Iraq ???

:eek:

Re: North Korea errors report
 

Marcello,
You really have a passion for this game! Coming up with all the needed equipment corrections. I look forward to the next upcoming patch update provided Andy and Don can input it all.:)

Re: North Korea errors report
 

No. Iraq has had such a complex armaments story (switching primary suppliers multiple times for example) that it basically needed to be completely redone. North Korea needs only a few adjustments by comparison.

Re: North Korea errors report
 

OK

Don

Re: North Korea errors report
 

To give you an idea, there are still 8-9 units that should be deleted and a similar number to be added. The rest is mostly minor: expanding some availability dates, changing an icon or two with better fits here and there and such.

Re: North Korea errors report
 

The following post should fix all the important remaining issues about vehicular units that have not been addressed previously. Another similar post will deal with infantry/artillery/organization issues. Many of the changes, as noted previously, are cosmetics or limited in nature, although as anticipated some vehicles have to be added/deleted or heavily modified. There should be no deletion of template units or others particular disruptive changes.

Unit n.8 T-34/85
It should be rearmed with weapon n.131 85mm D44 Gun 69 in place of the D-48. HE load could also be increased at the expense of AP and sabot (it would be used mostly for infantry support in reserve units and such).
The D-48, while still being an 85mm, is a different weapon not sharing ammunition and ballistics with the D-44/S-53.

Unit 51 : K63
1) Initial availability date should be changed to 1/1972
2) It should be rearmed with weapon n. 230 12.7mm 54T AAMG or weapon n.47 14.5 ZPU-1 AAMG
3) Speed should be reduced to 20.
This unit would represent the Type-63 APC imported from China and as such it should not have the twin ZPU as armament. These were installed in the local, newly built VTT-323 inside purpose built turrets.

Unit 59: BTR-60PB
Initial availability date should be extended back to 1/1974

Unit 63 BMP-1
1)FC should be reduced to 5
2)The ATGM in slot 2 could be changed to weapon 155 Susang Po ATGM

Unit 64: BMP-1
Initial availability date should be moved back to 1/1972

Unit 65: BMP-2
It should be deleted.
Never supplied according to all available sources.

Units 61-223 :Truck
Icon could be changed to n. 2982
It would fit better the GAZ-51/Zil-131/etc. the north koreans have used for their military. Not a must but nice to have.

Unit 105 : K63 M1973
1) Icon change n. 398.
2) Weapon n. 50 14.5 ZPU-2 TMG replaced with weapon n.47 14.5 ZPU-1 AAMG
3)Reclassed to class 52 Wheeled SP-ATGM
4) Missile ammo in slot 2 should be increased to 12
5)9M32 Strela-2 in slot 3 should be deleted
6) Name change to Type 85 Susang

This would represent the Type 85 ATGM carrier, which can be seen in the lower half of the following picture. (though caption is wrong, the vehicle is not an antiaircraft unit but an ATGM carrier as identified in the USMC North Korea Country Handbook)

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/2459/type85atgm.jpg

Unit 239: OT-64u
It should be deleted.
Never supplied to North Korea according to all available sources.

Unit 222-242: Light Truck and Light Truck FO
Icon should be changed to n. 2956
It would make it look like a generic GAZ , which is what has been used for such tasks anyway.

Unit 265 : IS-IIm1944
Final availability date could be extended to 12/1970
This would compensate the deletion of unit 266 IS-III in the formations using this class of units and fit with the north korean tendency to keep obsolete equipment in service well past its prime.

Unit 270: 2S4
It should be deleted.
It was almost certainly not supplied in 2000 for reasons already discussed and no source mentions it as having been supplied at any other date

Units 272-273 : VTT 323 82mm and VTT 323 120mm
Icons should be changed to icon n. 1991.
Icon n.1991 is a self propelled mortar icon while current icons are just plain OT-64 APCs.

Unit 276: 2S1
It should be deleted.
Never supplied to North Korea according to all available sources.

Unit 277: 2S3
1)It should be renamed “Juche-Po 152mm”
2)Final availability date should be extended to 12/2020
3)Weapon n. 53 7.62 SGMT AAMG in slot 2 could be either deleted or replaced with weapon 47 14.5 ZPU-1 AAMG

Two clones of the above copies should be added armed with the following guns
a) Weapon n. 95 122mm D-74 FG
b) weapon n.115 130mm M46 FG
ROF would be increased to 6 for the 122mm variant

Unit 278: 2S5
1)Weapon n 113 152mm 2A36 FG should be replaced with weapon n.111 152mm D20 FH
2)Name could be changed to M1985
3)Initial availability date could be changed to 1/1982

Unit 279: M1988 Koksan
1)Name change to M1978 Koksan
2)Intial availability date changed to 1/1978
3)Top armor should be reduced to 0 (to be consistent with similar units in others OOB)
This unit is at the moment an hybrid between the early M1978 version, built on a T-54/55 hull, and the later M-1989 version built on a dedicated chassis.

Units 281-282: M1974 and M1977
1)Icons for both vehicles should be changed to n. 1992
2)Speed of unit 282 should be reduced to 22

Unit 462: SU-100M
Stabilizer rating should be reduced to zero

Unit 465 Type 75 SPG
1)Armor and survivability ratings should be reduced to zero
2)FC and Rangefinder ratings should be reduced to zero
3)Icon changed to n. 2348
This woul represent one of the early self propelled artillery complex obtained by mating a gun to ATS-59 prime movers.

Units 466-467-468
They should be deleted. They do not match any know north korean SPA in terms of characteristics

Unit 492: M1992
Icon should be changed to n. 2932. This vehicle has no turret as shown in the following pictures:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7374/m1992apc.jpg
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6527/m1992apc2.jpg

To be added

Unit 378 from russian OOB GAZ-69 ATGM
It would be armed with weapon n.143 AT-1 Shmel
Availability dates 1/1967-12/2000

M1991 240mm MRL
1) Create a clone of weapon n.204 240mm Rocket with increased range (225 or so)
2) Import unit n. 530 Type 81 MRL from OOB 14 China
3) Rearm it with 22 of the aforeme mentioned rocket (loadout and ROF will have to be slighty adjusted)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...dprkcdf001.jpg

Sources various among which:
- www.militaryphotos.net
- SIPRI arms transfer database
- www.jedsite.info
- USMC North Korea Country Handbook 1997 edition
- North Korean Armed Forces Handbook 1976 edition
- Communist Logistics in the Korean War by Charles R. Shrader;
- North Korea Primer

Re: North Korea errors report
 

Here is a fix for all the remaining non vehicular north korean units which have not been covered in the previous posts. Most proposed changes are about matching on map and off map artillery units availabilit dates. No formations should be disturbed by these modifications (no deletion of template units etc.).
Next post will deal with organizational issues.

Unit 77: 82mm Mortar Sec
An additional mortar shuld be added. North Korea mortar batteries are composed by either nine 82mm mortars or six 120mm ones. Having three mortars in this unit would fix the problem without changing formation.

Unit 90: 76mm ZiS-3 FG
Final availability date should be extended to 12/1966 to match units 171-172

Unit 169 76mm ZiS3 Sec
It could be deleted as redundant.

Unit 171 and 172 76mm ZiS3 Sec and 76mm ZiS3 Sec +
Their number of guns should be reduced from three to two. They were used in a “four guns per battery and twelve guns per battalion“ organization.

Unit 91 122mm M30 FG
Final availability date should be extended to 12/1979 to match its off board counterpart unit 173

Unit 173 122mm M30 Sec
The number of guns should be reduced from three to two. They were used in a “four guns per battery and twelve guns per battalion“ organization.

Unit 95 152mm D-1 FH and unit 176 152mm D1 Sec
Mismatched availability dates
I suggest changing to 2/1948-12/2010 for both.

152mm D20 FH
Initial availability date should be moved back to 1/1966 to match unit 177, its offboard counterpart.

Unit 174 122mm D30 Sec
Initial availability date should moved back to 1/1967 to match unit 92, its on map counterpart.

An off board artillery unit using weapon n. 123 170mm Koksan FG should be added as well.

Unit 301 and Unit 311: Rifle Section
They should be rearmed with weapon n. 4 SKS Carbine in slot 1
AK-47 would not have been available in numbers at such a date; SKS on the other hand were widely exported in that timeframe.

Unit 476: 45mm M1942 ATG
I suggest loadout change to 40 HE 25 AP and 15 Sabot.
This gun was often used against infantry, as it had only very limited effectivines against contemporary armor and its HE shell was rather powerful for a gun of such caliber. Besides no HEAT rounds were available.

There seem to two ATGM sets, identical except for mismatched availability dates. I suggest the following changes to fix the issue

Unit 292: Fagot Team
Final availability date could be extended to 12/2020

Unit 432: Fagot Team
To be deleted: duplicate of unit 292

Unit 433: Susang Po Team
To be reclassed as class 142 Para Inf-AT.

Re: North Korea errors report
 

Here is the post with the fix for north korean organizations. It is a bit long but it should fix pretty much everything except the special forces/marines/airborne, for which I simply lack info to pass any judgement. There may still be a unit or two which need tweaks but with this nearly all of the work is done.

Formation 14 rifle company
1) Initial availability date should be changed to 1/1955
2) unit n. 68 82mm B10 RCL should be added in slot 8.
This configuration would be pretty good to represent a post korean war rifle company reinforced with battalion level support weapons.

The standard rifle company used during the korean war had a somewhat different organization
To fix that I suggest adding another rifle company with 2/1948-12/1954 as availability dates and the following structure.
1)rifle squad
2)three rifle platoons with four squads each
3)one weapons platoon in turn composed by:
a) Two MG sections such as unit 410 SGM MMG (2)
b) One unit 75 60mm Mortar Sec
c) Three unit n. 285 AT Rifle Team

Another rifle comnpany could be added composed by:
1)One Rifle Section unit n. 310
2)Three Formation n. 38 Rifle Platoon
1/1955–12/2020 as availability dates.
This in turn would represent a post korean war rifle company in its “by the book” configuration, according to what is reported by south korean sources. The players could reinforce with support weapons as desired.

Formation 15: Anti-Tank Pl
Inital availability dates should be moved back to 1/1967

Formation 22 Mech AT/AA Sec
Unit n. 69 107mm B11 RCL should be replaced by unit 431 Malutka Team.

Formation 33: Inf-ATGM Sec
Initial availability date could be moved back to 1/1972.

Formation 37: Mech Inf Pl
The MGs section in slot 4 should be deleted and the number of APCs should be reduced to three. Composition of a mechanized platoon is three squads with three APCs.


Formation n.69 Motor Bn Supt
- Formation n. 59 Motor MG Pl in slot n. 4 should be replaced by formation n. 13 SPAA Platoon
- Formation n. 89 Mot Mortar Pl in slot 5 could be replaced by formation n. 115 modified as described
- Formation n. 15 Anti-Tank Pl should be added in slot 6.

Formation n. 115: Mot Hvy Mort Pl
- name changed to “Mot Mort Pl”
- unit n. 80 160mm Mortar in slots 1-2-3 replaced by Unit 77 82mm Mortar Sec
This would create a mortar battery mounted on wheeled APC, useful to complement motorized formations. 160mm mortars would, most likely, be towed by normal artillery prime movers.


Formation n.70: Inf Bn Supt
- Formation n. 35 Machinegun Pl in slot n. 3 should be replaced by formation n.30 Inf-SAM Sec
- Formation n. 32 AT Gun Platoon in slot 4 should be replaced by formation n. 29 AntiTank RCL Pl
- Formation n. 87 Inf AT Team in slot 6 should be replaced by formation n.33 Inf-ATGM Sec
This would provide the correct allottment of support weapons for an infantry battalion in the post korea war era.

Formation n. 77: SPG Platoon
The number of units shoudl be increased from three to four

Formation 85: Motor Rifle Co
- Unit 60 BTR-80 in slot 3 should be replaced by formation n. 387 Wheeled APC Pl
-Formation n. 59 Motor MG Pl in slot 4 should be replaced by unit n. 410 SGM MMG (2)
- Formation n.88 Lt Mortar Pl-M should be replaced by unit n. 77 82mm Mortar Sec
This would represent a mechanized company reinforced with support weapons from the battalion level and the transports for them

Formation 92: Motor Rifle Pl
Unit n. 70 73mm SPG9 RCL in slot 4 should be replaced by an AT team (such as template unit n. 285)

Formation n. 96: M/Inf ATGM Sec
Initial availability date should be moved back to 1/1972.

Formation n. 106 Rocket Bty
Another formation n. 107 Rocket Pl should be added in slot 5.


Formation n. 125: Reserve Company
Formation 39 Reserve Platoon in slot 7 should be deleted, reducing the number of reserve platoons from four to three.

Formation 39: Reserve Platoon
-The number of reserve squads should be reduced from four to three, either by deleting one of them or replacing one of them it with a AT team (such as template unit 285).
-Initial availability date should be changed from 2/1948 to 1/1954 to match its parent company.

Formation n. 141: Light Tank Pl
Number of tanks in the platoon should be reduced to three

Formation n. 214: Truck Inf Co
- Unit n. 286 RPG-2 Team in slot 7 should be replaced with with Unit n. 75 60mm Mortar Sec
- Unit n. 286 RPG-2 Team in slot 8 should be replaced with with formation n. 87 Inf AT Team
- Unit n. 223 Truck should be replaced with formation n. 392 Trucks (3)
- Final availability date should be restricted to 12/1954

Formation 216: Truck Inf Pl
The MG section in slot 4 should be replaced with a rifle section. Final availability date should be restricted to 12/1954

This would represent a truck mounted version of the korean war period rifle company. As no APCs were available in quantity at the time (some BTR-40 may have been around but from what I get they were probably used as armored cars/scouts) any motorized formation, to the extent any was used, would have been mounted on trucks.

Unit 61: Truck
Final availability date could be extended to 12/2020.
This would enable truck mounted formations with the correct post korean war company organization.

Formation 26: Mech Inf Co+Tk4
It could be deleted as redundant, besides it is unclear if the four tanks per platoon organization was used after the korean war. Formation 25 Mech Inf Co+Tk3 is quite sufficient.

Formation n. 6: Assault Co
The assault platoon in slot 5 would be deleted , reducing the number of platoons to three.

Formation n. 93 Assault Platoon
Composition should be changed to six units n. 340 SMG teams and one unit n. 350 LMG team.
This would represent korean war era SMG companies.


Some formations to be added
1) A clone of formation n.16 AA-Gun Battery but with six guns

2) A clone of formation n. 28 Field Gun Bty wityh the number of guns reduced to four and 2/1948-12/1979 as availability dates

3) A clone of formation n.32 AT Gun Platoon but with four guns and 2/1948-12/1955 as availability dates.

4) A Weapons Company Composed by
a) Two units n. 412 DShK HMG (2)
b) one AT Gun Platoon
c) Three formations n. 87 Inf AT Team
2/1948-12/1954 as availability dates


A clone of unit n. 175 130mm M46 Sec with the ammo load increased to 120 rounds per gun could be added.
This would be useful to represent those long range artillery units emplaced in prepared positions near the DMZ, one of the few strenghts of North Korea. In light of the fact that several high end units (T-80s, BMP-3s etc) would have to be deleted this would also be a partial compensation.

Re: North Korea errors report
 

A very useful source for the above has been the
"North Korean People's Army 1950 - 1953" found here

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.

Re: North Korea errors report
 

Given the original complaint was where SU-100's even on NK Soil before the mid 60's making a "clone" of unit 461 seems a bit of a stretch. I can see REpLACING that unit with a SU-85 but since the discussion ended when I asked hard questions we are still in the dark. I will change 461 to a su-85. You tell me "may indeed have had some SU-85Ms in service" shall we assume they were in service until the su-100 arrived

Don

Re: North Korea errors report
 

...UNFORTUNATELY the quote is from Wikipedia and I am still looking for a corroborating source


"Russian Battlefield" says 315 M's were made

Given those reason it makes sense why the M looks like a SU-100. The photo in the game of the Polish su-85m shows this all off



It would be nice to know if the ammo storage was greater on the M

Don

Re: North Korea errors report
 

After recieving further information in a PM and further investigation of the photo Marcello on tanknet I belive what I am going to do is removed that unit from the game. Any evidence that su-100's existed in the NK army during the Korean war are far outweighed by the information that suggests otherwise.

Although the PM message writer points out the barrel length I have seen photos of su-85m from nearly the same angle that shows a barrel length similar but given that the condition of the photo is poor to begin with how long the barrel looks from that angle depends far more on the FL of the lens the photographer was using than anything else and I've lightened up the photo as well and DO NOT see "a box in the right hand side of the glacis plate" "That would indicate a 50s rebuild" and I've squeezed all the resolution and sharpeness out of that photo that is possible.

The bottom line is unit 461 in the NK OOB has been removed until definative proof is presented

Don