Australian War Memorial.
Both T-34s in this picture are different look at the turrets.
To quote user GeraldOwen
“These are great pictures–I haven’t seen them before.
The nearer vehicle is a Factory 183 tank from 1945 or later. It has the flattened area on the lower center of the turret sides, and the spiderweb pattern cast wheels. The basic Dragon kit depicts this version. The vehicle behind it is a 1945 Factory 112 vehicle with the late turret with the wide, low-riding turret bustle and the two mushroom ventilators on the roof (as seen in Academy’s kit). It also has the solid, stamped wheels. Note the larger hinges on the tail plate, and the overlap of upper plate over the lower. On the 183 tanks, the top plate fits inside the edge of the lower tail plate, and the hinges are smaller.”
This was knocked out by a 3.5 cm rocket, however, considering we have inspired vehicles, ex, The Clickbait, why not give a United Korean TT some strange looking tanks, more based on pictures, whenever it was serviced in this configuration, really doesn’t matter. Falls under Semi-Historical. Semi-> cause it was knocked out, historical cause it is based on the picture.
1 Like
Haven’t seen it come up in discussion but I think this would be a pretty neat event/squadron rocket pseudo-AA. It’s called the Bigung/Poniard MLRS and fires domestically (with some US help) modified IR fire-and-forget Hydras called LOGIR with an 8km range. It’s completely self-contained and acquires targets through the system at the top of its mast.
I call it a pseudo-AA because its main purpose is actually coastal defense against small boats but it should still be capable of acquiring airborne targets. Main issue is that it would need to hit a target directly. No proximity fuze to help out. This would essentially limit its targets to helicopters and larger planes. Also, while a LOGIR conversion is theoretically possible on any standard Hydra, only M151 HE Hydras have actually been converted in reality, as far as I know. This makes the system incapable of taking out ground targets with any armor, however, the 1kg Comp B warhead of the M151 should still be easily capable of taking out any air target.
All in all, it wouldn’t be anything game-breaking, even if Gaijin didn’t gimp its mast elevation, however, it would still be a interesting and unique vehicle that could catch pesky helicopters off guard once in a while. It would also have the highest number of ready-to-fire guided munitions of any AA in the game, allowing it to spam 4 or 5 rockets at a single target without issue. Pair this high ammo count with an ammo crate and you’ve got an “AA” platform that can easily last you an entire game. Most importantly, it’d be really funny.
5 Likes
Do they simply not exist for Hydra?
“Балбесная величина” © (Dunce value) — Everyone from Russian Forum
Proxy fuzes for Hydras do exist, however, the fuze of the LOGIR is actually situated behind the seeker, which could interfere with the standard Hydra proximity fuze. It’s likely that a new purpose-made fuze would need to be developed to give it proximity capabilities. It also just wouldn’t make sense for the Bigung’s purpose, which is destroying small boats. Direct impact is much more effective against these targets than proximity detonation.
2 Likes
Already in the tree, the actual name is Ch’ŏnma-216.
1 Like
Ok. Please change the name in Pokpung-ho.
No. Ch’ŏnma-216 is the official North Korean designation. ‘Pokpung ho’ is made up.
1 Like
I want it to happen to the real Korea but sure why not in the game, also there is no new problems that has not happened before since we already have China, German & Italy having a weird mix of tanks…
I like it a lot but I find the fact that the Crownell is there useless because it is the only 3.3 tank and you can’t create a team with it.
There are two options I can think of:
A. Remove the Cromwell V and M24 Chaffee from the tree as they are both copy pastes that lack a respective lineup.
B. We often forget that the British 75mm in-game only uses solid shot M61 because the British preferred to fill their shells with concrete while the Americans designed them with an explosive charge. Due to this being a captured tank, there’s a chance that any captured M61 shot North Korea had available was of the American type with explosive filler, which I think would warrant bumping this tank to 3.7 alongside the aforementioned Chaffee.
5 Likes
Yes you are absolutely right, I agree.
1 Like
I’d rather not remove the M24 because, yes, while copy-paste, it’s also one of the very few vehicles that fits at the reserve/3.7-4.0 range. Plus, 2 of the 3 others are also copy-paste (the T-34s). Only the 323 (14.5) is unique. Would rather have 2x mediums, 1x light, and 1x SPAA for a lineup than just the mediums and SPAA (especially since the next light tank is at 5.3 and can only really be used at 5.7+)
Could just remove the Cromwell. It makes things simple.
There’s also the option of adding very anachronistic vehicles like the Chunma-D / M2010 APC, which just have 2x 14.5mm KPVs, in place of the M24. Doubt they’d perform particularly well at ~3.7 but they might work.
1 Like
Fair enough, I have more than enough experience to know that the M24 is effective multiple BR levels above 3.7. It just sucks that it can be enjoyed at its native BR in every other nation but requires a minimum uptier to 4.0 to be playable in this nation. I do suspect that there may be some other options for 3.7 (including the Cromwell with APHE), and so I can understand the decision to keep it around for now.
I would remove the Cromwell but the M24 can be kept. Also I think Chunma-D would be interesting to add.
They captured it from the British, not the Americans.
2 Likes
Of course, but I think that there may be the possibility of American M61 shot stocks being captured as well, as I know that there were some 75mm Shermans and Chaffees that operated during the Korean War. But yes, at the very least we can assume that the Cromwell may have had British M61 shot onboard when it was retrieved.
