North Korea OOB - Page 2

DRG · #1 December 31st, 2013, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastboat tough

the mig-29a is strictly a short ranged tactical fighter that had no conventional bomb carrying capability. We in fact just last year after i made contact with a ddr mig-29a pilot, deleted them from the e. German, german and polish oob's for that very reason. Regards,
pat

exactly why

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #2 April 17th, 2017, 08:57 PM

Marcello where ever you've gotten off too, this one is for you and your hard work here and other places...

You will see this in the MBT & SPA/SPAA Threads as well. I've been waiting for this data to come out since last Friday. Couldn't tell if the Pokpung-ho was mounting a new double barrelled MG or if it was a Grenade Launcher now that question has been answered. Did some work on this OOB a few years back with Don and the "resident" expert on the subject Marcello. We've had some "interesting" discussions ourselves but, I have always respected his opinions. Don't know what's happened to him but, he made me better out here when I first decided to start posting out here going back to the start of my MRAP Thread. It will be posted where this belongs but first I need them in my working threads. These are mostly I think minor change issues to existing (Copy) units.

Any information from a reliable source as this is worth it's weight in gold when it concerns North Korea.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april..._11704172.html

Might surprise some, but this is "how I roll".

Regards,
Pat

DRG · #3 April 17th, 2017, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

Marcello where ever you've gotten off too, this one is for you and your hard work here and other places...

Thinking that maybe this is him

http://www.massimotessitori.altervis...-2010-8x8.html

There is a link to this forum in one post..... I could be wrong though

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #4 April 17th, 2017, 11:25 PM

Went to that site the link is there to this thread. I think it's him though not sure. But the site in the tank section specifically for the Pokpung-ho at the bottom of the page it reports of a "new antitank missile, Bulsae-3" fired in Feb. 2016 against a Chonma-216 a "sub variant" of the Pokpung-ho. Hopefully the below will open to this page note the two bottom pictures of the page.
http://www.massimotessitori.altervis...okpung-ho.html
https://www.nknews.org/2016/03/new-v...n-north-korea/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-tank-missile/
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m2002.htm

Sounds like it's modified from the Russian KORNET.

I agree that a 30mm GL is more in line as well. A 40mm would be a little more obvious I think. I didn't even think about the 30mm to be honest with you.

On the other missile well guess from where and whom note last item of first post on this page this came off the web...
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showt...t=43303&page=2

Don't do "PEN math" but, agree with assessment and comparative missile equivalent which is in line with the web though there's less here than with the above ATGW.

Oh Great Rabbit in the sky PLEASE let there not be too many "rabbit holes" here. Unlike India lots less info here normally. Like India can very easily be a PITA.

Regards,
Pat

sabresandy · #5 January 1st, 2014, 04:37 AM

Okay, makes sense.

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #6 January 2nd, 2014, 03:44 AM

Who doesn't love a parade? Well North Korea certainly does love them, to the point of mixing in mock equipment with the real. During the 60th Anniversary Parade in the fly over of North Korean military transport planes it was later found they were from the national airline painted in military colors. Another interesting item were the intercontinental missiles paraded, among some other minor issues concerning them was the lack of retro rockets which is not so a minor issue. You really need them-trust me. Then the real Hughes 500E helos (pair) did a fly over of some tanks they were "supporting" in battle. So ended at least 30 years of speculation concerning them. Well I wasn't content with what the current info provided, I went to the past for the answers we need. So to Jan. 22nd 1987 we find that 87 Hughes helicopters were sold between the spring of 1983 -Jan. 1985 the type were the Hughes 300C (1 ONLY), 500D and 500E (As seen this past Sep.) These helos are the civilian version of the Vietnam era OH-6 better known as the "LOACH".
Bottomline: Yes as with the modern MD series helos, the Hughes 500D and 500E could be and were (Rhodesia for one.) weaponized. Only one I can find that was is the 500E however and just my feelings here, I suspect the 500D was armed as well by North Korea. It should be added it seems the current sources agree on 4 AT-3 SAGGER ATGW missiles.
Sometimes you have to look "over your shoulder" and back to find the answer, not to mention preventing being "stabbed in the back"!?!

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-01-..._1_north-korea
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/22/us...rth-korea.html
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/mdc/cayuse.page

Regards,
Pat

Marcello · #7 April 3rd, 2014, 03:12 PM

The MiG-29 was in the older versions of the OOB but with wrong stats. I recommeded deletion, instead of corrections on the basis of the following:
1) The type is primarily an air defence fighter (I was under the impression it could carry bombs but in practice designed and most likely used for air to air).
2) It is the only "modern" fighter in their inventory, so it is doubtful it would waste precious flight hours over ground attack training. As a matter of fact in the NK training footage older types,of which they have zillions, such as MiG-23 or earlier can be seen dropping bombs while MiG-29s just fly around (not an ironclad proof but..). In wartime it would be busy with air to air.
3) The units equipped with it are based to protect the capital and brigaded together with the SU-25s so even in a coup/civil war scenario they would still be doing air to air most likely even if they were bomb capable.
4) CAS isn't high on KPAF list as far as it can be told. Some of their older types have been modified for or have been tasked with ground attack but this is likely to be against targets in the enemy rear.

Marcello · #8 April 3rd, 2014, 06:36 PM

Anyway IMHO given the scope of the game there is not much point in trying to add as many aircrafts as possible. The combination of planes and loadouts used by a major power in over 70 years would clog any OOB. The main types used for ground attack with a moderate variety of war loads should suffice.
Otherwise we will be adding stuff like the Su-15 Flagon with gunpods or other theoretically possible but unlikey combinations.

Suhiir · #9 April 4th, 2014, 06:35 AM

Yeah half the "fun" of doing an OOB is aircraft.

What aircraft types are owned?
How many? Enough to matter?
How ARE they used vs how CAN they be?
What ordnance load DO they carry vs what CAN they carry?

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #10 April 4th, 2014, 12:22 PM

With all due respect; Post #11 answers all your questions. I guess the real issue here is how embedded are they in the existing scenarios and campaigns in the game. This was the roadblock in my proposal to cull the fighters from the more advanced countries to open slots in them as these countries are as we know fighter-bomber and ground attack aircraft heavy. As Don indicated in response to that idea it would be a very intensive effort. That discussion is in the Jets/Planes Thread about 2 yrs. ago.

Regards,
Pat