MBT's

[Marcello]

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.


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.

[Marcello]

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.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Marcello

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.

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

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

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:




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:


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!!

[DRG]

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

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

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

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

A. I'm still convinced it's carrying a 115mm main gun

And few dispute this as far this vehicle is concerned.

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.

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.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

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.
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. 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:


Have great end of the week!!

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

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

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

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