This image you provided earlier also appears to be an M18 Hellcat instead of an M24 Chaffee
4 Likes
Now that you mention it, yeah it actually is an M18 wtah, I missed that lmao
1 Like
K300-AA : K-300 Truck + 20mm M167A1, No rader
3 Likes
Tender for maintenance of SA-3, SA-6 and SA-8 at ROKAF 8th Fighter Wing. Of course, this is a publicly available document.
3 Likes
As promised, an alternative layout:
It has its pros and cons. It does eliminate some of the odd gaps but it also makes some parts a bit more bloated (notably the SPG line). To counter that I did move the M36 and K55/K55A1 to the MBT line, since they’re turreted, and the M56 to the light tank line.
I imagine this is the layout Gaijin would choose though, if they ever make this tree. Just with half the vehicles and more copy-paste
3 Likes
Would they also get the MiGs? Also they should get a American Operated F4U-4 Corsair as well, maybe for a event vehicle though.
in ground forces? :D
But yes, North Korea has a fair few aircraft to offer: North Korean Aviation Sub-Tree
Not much that’s hugely unique but it’s not entirely C+P
I still give it a big fat +1 either way.
1 Like
I like this idea better than the current one.
Whether you intended it or not, the M36 in particular is a good representation of ROK’s historical background, as ROKA used to designate the M36 as a (Light) tank, not a TD.
It would be possible to split the Jahaenghwasŭngchong 10hyŏng into two vehicles, one with four launch tubes and one with eight launch tubes.
The one with eight launch tubes seems to be equipped with the 9K310 Igla-1 (SA-16) based on the shape of the missile warhead. (As far as I know, this is a North Korean-indigenous modification that does not exist in the USSR/Russia).
On the other hand, the Soviet Strela-10M2 in the game, which looks almost the same as the one with 4 launch tubes, has a BR of 10.3, so the gap seems too large for a modification like the BMP-1P. For vehicles with four launch tubes, we don’t know whether North Korea uses the 9M31 or 9M37, however, it could probably be implemented with the stock 9M31 and the researchable 9M37/9M37M.
2 Likes
Good to hear!
Possible, yes, but the one with four launch tubes is very-much just copy-paste, and not really necessary.
It’s equipped with a domestically-produced variant of the Igla-1 designated HT-16PGJ, which is speculated to be slightly improved over the base model. And yes, it’s a unique DPRK modification. It’s the main reason I chose this variant over the 4 tube one.
Ah, if you intentionally not listed it to reduce C&P, then I understand.
By the way, have you heard any stories about North Korea’s T-54/55 upgrade kits (with LRF) sold to the Middle East? I don’t remember exactly what I saw in the back of my mind, because that was a long time ago, so maybe I’m simply misremembering, or maybe it was an unreliable assertion.
1 Like
Yes. North Korea don’t seem to have equipped their domestic LRF on any of their T-54/55s, at least not in substantial numbers. It’s a similar story to the Ch’ŏnma, which only has a LRF on later models – older variants still haven’t been equipped with them other than a few individual vehicles.
But they exported a bunch of their LRFs beginning in the early 1970s, almost entirely to Syria afaik. There are no numbers available but they’re widely seen and still in service. A number of these T-55s have then been captured and put into use by various factions during the civil war, including ISIS and the YPG.
Here’s some images:
- Syrian Army, 1976
- Syrian Army, 1982
- Syrian Army, during civil war
- Syrian Army (I believe), during civil war
- ISIS, during civil war
- YPG, during civil war
1 Like
Here’s another Syrian T-55 with North Korean LRF’s
Syria having North Korean weapons and weapon systems isn’t too surprising considering that both countries have a common enemy in the region and use a lot of the same weapons. Syria’s BM-11’s were largely of North Korean origin. Also helped by the fact that both Syria and the DPRK have close relationship’s with Iran
2 Likes
IF … Gaijin indeed decides going that separated route … (just discussing the big IF situation here)
I’d ask is SK going to Jp that big of a concern? coz US, like Rus and Germany doesn’t benefit much from a subtree. These are the big 3 and have already got loads of stuffs of their own left to be added.
But … SK can bolster JP, greatly? Japan haven’t got much left to be added per se, but SK & even Singapore can bring some excitement into the tree. Their tech is also western biased.
In that case NK can go to China, logically. The only other candidate for NK can be Rus but China makes more sense.
Again, this is discussion is only for if Gaijin decides against a unified Korea TT.
Yes. I won’t disagree that South Korea would be able to bolster Japan pretty significantly, but that’s not why an ROK subtree is opposed. Without getting too far into politics, there is still huge animosity towards Japan in South Korea, and vice versa.
Poll from 2023: https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/1
- 37.4% of Japanese respondents had a ‘good’ impression of South Korea (the highest since the surveys began in 2013)
- 28.9% of South Korean respondents had a ‘good’ impression of Japan
That is not a good way to make Japanese or South Korean players happy.
Not to mention the lack of any joint developments in the tree, other than shared American imports.
If ROK was to be a subtree, the US tree would genuinely be a better fit, with far closer relations and a lot of shared vehicles and joint developments (notably the K1 being a derivative of the XM-1).
ASEAN would be better for Japan, in particular Thailand. Plus there are still a few unique Japanese vehicles to be added to help bolster lineups and provide something new.
2 Likes
Drawing a parallel here, I don’t think Indians are too much keen to see Indian vehicles under the British tree either … (yes Cents and Vickers exist but still)
Nor Czech stuffs under USSR tree …
But ok, anyways, guess its upto Gaizilla to decide.
Will post some Korean stuffs here from wishlist…
copying from Wishlist topic :
The M-2020 / MBT-2020’s official name is Cheonma-2.
Interestingly, it seems the ammunition fired by it is non-Soviet standard one-piece 125mm ammo.
(Likely to be 115mm guns upscaled to 125mm standard)
Similar to how Arjun also fires non-UK standard one-piece 120mm rifled ammo.
(105mm L7 upscaled to 120mm standard)
This explains the external Bulsae-3 (Kornet-E derived) ATGM launchers instead of Soviet style gun-launched ATGMs like 9M119.
One-piece shells likely derived from acquired Egyptian BD/36-2 shells and then upscaled.
A mock-up engine similar to MTU MT883 has also been seen. Rumored to be powering the Cheonma-2 MBT. Power output might not be same as MTU.
The MBT also got extra armour plate added to turret roof. likely to counter top attack munitions.
ERA seems to be Kontakt-5 derived.
Gunner sight seems to be similar to Sosna-U.
Commander sight is a bit confusing but might house laser rangefinder and thermal sight as well as maybe ATGM guidance channel?
Likely APS installed. Turret cutouts for APS launchers and sensors.
Double pin tracks like the T-80 and T-90.
Also a concept of wheeled MGS:
Main gun likley to be a 115mm one.
1 Like
Pretty rare:
North Korean light tank. Supposedly based on the NK 323 APC, but bears no known official name, but believed to be in service in very limited numbers.
Built during mid 1970s, as a precursor to the ‘M1981’ Sinhŭng.
Typical engine front, fighting compartment at the rear setup (differs from ‘M1981’ Sinhŭng).
Likely mounting a 85mm cannon similar to Chinese Type 62, 14mm armor overall and 320hp engine.
2 Likes
Chieftain gave it the name " 323 Light Tank" Since we do not know the actual designation at the current moment it’s fairly appropriate.
1 Like
MGMC, but uses a different truck (M37)
3 Likes