Probably just get thrown in with china, like how Britain has the African and Sweden has finland
2 Likes
Where are you getting this information from?
- The supposed lack of armour has never been proven and seems to only be propaganda/false information to make NK tanks seem weaker. It’s never backed up by any sources. They almost certainly could make steel at roughly the same level as the T-62, I doubt it would be as drastic as you say later on.
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/chonma/#index1
There are some theories regarding the Ch’ŏnma’s armor being different to the T-62. There is no supporting evidence to the claim that the armor of early production Ch’ŏnmas was made of thinner armored plates than on the Soviet T-62. As it was a copy, the armor should have had the same thicknesses, even though the quality of the steel it was made from was probably lower than the Soviet equivalent. It seems that no foreign nation that operated the Ch’ŏnmas ever complained about thinner armor, or in general, the quality of the armor.
- North Korea never differentiated the early Ch’ŏnma variants. They are all called Ch’ŏnma; Ch’ŏnma I and II (the version with a LRF) weren’t differentiated, and I’ve never seen the 1A/1B designations anywhere else. Where did you get those from? Especially the claim the 1B suddenly had the same armour quality (not to mention the -Ho suffix and roman numeral designation being an American addition and not the real name)
Because they never gave them different names, I think they should be named as follows:
Ch’ŏnma
- Base version, same characteristics as T-62 but with NK modifications like the different loader’s hatch
Ch’ŏnma (1986)
- The rare version with the turret bustle, in your images as the one below
Ch’ŏnma (1992)
- The “Chonma II”, with the LRF
Ch’ŏnma
Ch’ŏnma (1986)
Ch’ŏnma (1992)
2 Likes
Just give the NK tank the same “late war” armor mod that german tanks used to have, where it was a little bit weaker.
Really funny, love that Igla variant. Id say for balancing, itd have to be a higher BR for sure, and that there should be a little guy modeled on the engi deck which could be killed who is behind the igla
But then it’s a worse T-62 at the same BR, and I doubt the armour loss would be enought to justify a lower BR.
Trueee. But having a MANPAD on your T62 is pretty crazy, especially at the BR the T62 is…
But thats just my opinion. It would be the lowest tiered MANPAD i think
But it’s also just one MANPAD that probably doesn’t get a reload.
1 Like
Thats a good point. Does it not carry spares on board? It would depend how its modeled I think
Nothing I’ve read indicates it did, and I don’t know where they would be stored in the already fairly cramped T-62. Most North Korean tanks that do have them have 2 (either mounted together or separately at either side of the turret/vehicle in general), and I guess that’s deemed enough. This particular Ch’ŏnma is strange in that it only has 1, could just be for show.
1 Like
Interesting. Irregardless id love to see it in game, and in a balanced fair state for both parties to use/fight
North Korea’s industry was normal before the collapse of the Soviet Union, so this claim is quite a stretch.
The “miserable” North Korea we know is the result of not receiving any support from the Eastern Bloc after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
1 Like
Igla used by North Korea is the 9К310, an early model, they do not use the 9К38.
They use the 9K310, as well as a modified version called the HT-16PGJ:
However, the MANPADS currently seen in Syria shares the most resemblance with the older 9K310 Igla-1 (SA-16) system, but with the characteristic tricone nose mounted on the missile replaced with the more modern aerodynamic spike also seen on the 9K38 Igla (SA-18) and 9K338 Igla-S (SA-24) systems it is likely its performance has been improved.
The most significant other difference that allows the North Korean system to be discerned from it Soviet/Russian counterparts is the foreward placement of the thermal battery which powers the MANPADS.
HT-16PGJ is an export name, the North Korean name is Hwasungchong 3 (9К310).
It’s still a new variant, so I’d hesitate to say that they use the same 9K310 name for both the original and the new one.
I wrote this post a very long time ago so I may have some sources that are outdated (Example the updated tank encyclopedia post on the Chonma was made way after I had drafted this post).
The source used for the 1A and 1B claim is from this which is possible from new sources that I have found way after I had made this post being conflicting on other models due to the sparse information on the Chonma series of tanks. As listed in my sources used above: North Korean Tanks
I will update this post eventually but I’m quite busy right now and have a few drafts in the works for a couple of vehicles alongside bringing over the final old forums posts, please forgive anything that may be incorrect due to earlier limited sources.
No worries, it’s nothing personal, I know there’s a lot of false information about these vehicles online and just wanted to correct the record. I’ve got like 19 suggestion posts of my own on North Korean tanks pending approval here. o7
1 Like
I created my posts on the earlier chonmas for the old forums + the 323 then moved them over here, you should hopefully get your posts approved soon (probably will happen after November they like accepting posts after the passed to devs stuff is done at the end of the month), I was going to create a post on the Koksan but I got busy and priorities changed with it going behind getting the Belgium T13 post I had made recreated for the new forums alongside a few American planes and ground vehicles that I had in the works.
If you haven’t yet made it, I was looking at doing one as well. I’ve got an equally long list of NK vehicles that I want to make suggestions for lol
It was one of the ones I had initially planned to do however I don’t think I’ll be making a post on it any time soon, feel free to make one on either of the vehicles variants.
1 Like