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.