Looking up the information, I found that it is using the name K-153C1.
The Type 82’s main gun is the same as that of the Type 62 light tank, so it can use HEAT-FS
2 Likes
Meant to say HEAT-FS as well. It still wouldn’t do well at a high BR – the ZTS63 with the same gun is at 7.7 with a LRF and APFSDS, and at that BR it’s still not very good. Having a tank without a LRF or APFSDS, just average pen 85mm HEAT-FS at 8.0 is a recipe for disaster, lol. Bearing in mind you’ve also got stuff like the Object 906 at 8.0 with similar ammunition (same 300mm HEAT pen, much better APCBC pen), a stabiliser and an autoloader.
K9 doesnt have laser rangefinder and TVD. 8.0 is too high and 7.3 will be better.
2 Likes
What needs to be added
-
You can add the little-known K1E1. This is different from the commonly known K1E1 of the 21st century, which was the name of the prototype stage of the K1A1. (Similar to American naming convention.) In-game, this can be differentiated from the K1A1 by using a lower level of ammo than the K1A1. In this case, the K1E1 (120mm) and K1E1 (105mm) will be equivalent to the M1A1 and IPM1 of the current American TT.
-
KAFV 30A: Unlike the KAFV 30M, it is a manned turret and has different armament. Since there were two variations using 30mm, “30” was followed by “A” and “M” to differentiate them.
Spoiler
- Ch’ŏnma with bustle: This is Ch’ŏnma with nothing special about it except for the bustle.
Spoiler
-
Tarantula: Developed by Doosan DST and exported to Indonesia in 22 units, it is the first generation wheeled armored vehicle of the Doosan-Hanwha lineage. (Tarantula - Black Fox - Tigon)
-
M1992 (AK-230)
What needs to be removed
-
M26 is only mentioned in Baek Seon-yeop’s autobiography without any sources, and there are no sources to cross-verify it. There is no testimony that a member of the M26 crew or saw the M26 in ROKA. On the other hand, official media of the ROK Ministry of National Defense and the ROK Army do not mention the M26 among the tanks operated by the ROK Army. Link
-
PV-1 and PV-2 have no reason to be in the tree. Like the S1 and S2 of the Strv 103, the PV-1 was used for road tests and the PV-2 for fire tests, and the both are not complete systems. The XK-1 on display at the War Memorial of Korea is more appropriate.
-
KM423 and KM424 are not required. While the game is celebrating its 10th anniversary, the only ‘Jeep-like’ vehicle implemented is the Japanese Type 93, and even this cannot ignore the problem that Japan did not have the option. Improvising a vehicle simply by fixing weapons on top of a jeep is not technically interesting, nor need it for form-up a lineup. There’s also no shortage of Korean vehicles in that BR range, so it would be more clean to get rid of them drastically. I want to see Korean TT in War Thunder, not Technical Thunder.
What needs to be changed
-
K9’s BR should be reduced. K9 VIDAR (Versatile InDirect ARtillery system), as its name suggests, has been ordered by the Norwegian military with several additional options for multi-purpose use, including coastal artillery missions, as well as LRF and thermal imaging equipment. It has different specifications from the K9 for the Korean military.
-
Remove “Rotem” from vehicle names. Like just as it is called “K2”, not “Hyundai Rotem K2”.
-
The official name of the wheeled SPAAG adopted by the Korean military is K-30W, and nickname is Cheonho. So their names are should be matching to K30 - K30W - K31 or K30 Biho - K30W Cheonho - K31 Cheonma.
Etc
-
I really like North Korea’s local classifications and notations instead of the inaccurate classifications of the SK-US intelligence agencies (like Chonma-I/II/III/IV/V) and inaccurate notations (like “Chonma”) that are widespread on the Internet.
-
Have you considered organizing the lines of the tree into light tanks / South Korean MBT / North Korean MBT / TD / AA?
-
The M48 and later South Korean tanks have different BR ranges depending on their ammunition. For 105mm APFSDS, there is a wide variety: M735, K270, K274, K274N, 105mm NG.
-
The “Jahaenghwasŭngchong 10hyŏng(Strela-10)” exists in models with 4 launch tubes and models with 8 launch tubes. It could be implemented like the BMP-1P upgrade of the BMP-1.
4 Likes
So newest updates, i think we can trust david on that one and seems like gajin is already doing quite a bit of research for K2
KAPS does not exist it was cancelled a while ago
The K2NO was only a mock up as well and does not exist
I’ve written a suggestion for this before, that’s all.
i am partialy confuses why we got K2 black panther suggestions then … but oh well
Do you happen to have any sources for this? Sounds interesting!
I’ve suggested it separately but I was unsure where it should go in the tree, considering the maximum pen I could find for it is ~51mm, and yet it’s fast and has a full stabiliser.
This is already in the tree as the Ch’ŏnma (1986), premium, BR 8.7.
Unless I’m missing something, this would be virtually identical to the KW1 FSV.
edit: nvm, seems to have APFSDS and be stabilised.
Already in the tree, under the name M1989, BR 8.3. M1992 is an alternate name, but M1989 is more accurate.
Will probably remove these next time I update it, sure. I misread the page for the KM423 and found that it specifically is just the ammunition carrier vehicle, and the launcher vehicle only has 2 rounds. I see your point about them just being technicals.
Will do all this in the next update.
Thank you! I took care to use them when I made all my North Korean vehicle suggestions; it’s incredibly frustrating to see all the inaccurate names out there.
Briefly. I might experiment and post it here if it looks okay; I’ll probably keep the current layout however, unless the alternative is clearly better and more appealing.
I will look into this, but my issue is that they’re unstabilised, and so sort of have a soft limit as to what BR they can go up to (before they just become frustrating to play). Currently I have them as being similar to the M48A2GA2, which I think works, but I could move one of them up/play around with their ammo choices a bit.
I assume you’re referring to the Pŏn’gae-3? (where’d you get that name?) In which case, I don’t believe the model with 4 launch tubes fires the modified Igla’s. North Korea operate the standard Strela-10, identical to the in-game version, with 4 launch tubes, and their modified version with different missiles as the 8 launch tubes version. I don’t know if that would work as a modification, as it’s a different model and missiles, and the two aren’t interchangeable.
Thanks for the detailed suggestions though! :)
KAPS does exist and has been tested, it just never found it’s way onto the production vehicles. The XK2 with KAPS is a perfectly valid suggestion.
If true, I believe this would still count as an unfinished prototype, and is thus still a valid suggestion. We have other vehicles with mock-up equipment in game.
2 Likes
And those are problems too. I just don’t want even more confusion added to SIM.
thats the specific reason the challenger 3 (TD) with eurothropy got denied the coerlian got removed, we do not have mock ups in the game
Yak-141? Chi To (Late)? Ho-Ri Prototype was a wooden model. M6A2E1 never had the planned extra armour mounted. etc.
Plus, the suggestion rules literally state unfinished prototypes are acceptable, provided all the parts were made and planned to be mounted in detail, as on the K2NO.
that wasnt mock ups , dont know enough about the other ones, still i had multiple mock ups denied already as well for the same reason
The wooden model I believe turned out to be fake. However it is instead known to have started prototype construction based on a Chi-Ri hull to unknown state of completion.
It is also unknown which of the three Ho-Ri designs was chosen, so the Ho-Ri Prototype has a 33% chance of being an actual unfinished prototype and 67% of being a paper vehicle.
I personally even lean towards it being one of the other two designs, considering Gaijin chose the only one with radically redesigned front plate compared to the Chi-Ri it was converted from.
I vaguely remember that for a vehicle to be counted as unfinished prototype any vehicle specific (so not otherwise used) part would have to have been made. Something like an engine, hull/turret parts or a weapon, provided it hasn’t been used foe anything else.
Then again they migh have changed those rules now considering I remember them from the old forum still.
this is in fact true the ho ri was supossed to look more like this
or like this
supossedly having a thicker hull now but well it never went out of a paper since the wooden mockup wasnt made by the ones who made the project but from japanese historians i believe, but im not quite sure
1 Like
Yeah, basically:
I looked for information on this a long time ago for Wargame: Red Dragon. However, it may take some time because it is sleeping ‘somewhere (literally)’ in my old HDD.
They will play similar roles in the game, but technically there are two lines: Hyundai Rotem’s KW1/2 (K806/808) and Doosan-Hanwha’s Tarantula-Black Fox-Tigon.
I think Tarantula should be given priority because it did not sleep in the prototype stage and was actually mass produced and operated by the Indonesian Army… or why not have both in this tree?
Black Fox also has pictures of this, but I’m not suggesting it because I’m not sure if this turret is a mockup or actually works.
Spoiler
I cross-checked it through two sources.
First, I found this name on Jajusibo, an Internet news outlet written by pro-North Korea journalist Han Ho-seok. After visiting the 조선인민군 무장장비관Korean People’s Army Arms and Equipment Museum in Pyongyang, he wrote five chronicle articles, and the name “자행화승총Jahaenghwasŭngchong 10형10hyŏng” was mentioned in three of them. #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
Of course, as you can easily see, his claims are full of nonsense regarding the performance of North Korean weapons or the capabilities of the North Korean military. However, there is no reason for him to make up the ‘names’ of the weapons that he ‘wrote down’ during his visit to Phyŏngyang.
Second, I found this name on an article by Pastor Choi Jae-young that appeared in Minjog21, a pro-North Korea magazine. Like Han Ho-seok, he also visited the Korean People’s Army Arms and Equipment Museum in Pyongyang. He wrote “자행화승포Jahaenghwasŭngpho 10형10hyŏng”, a slightly different name than what Han used. It looks Choi confused the name with “고사포Kosapho (Anti Aircraft Gun)”.
*Edit: Remove duplicate sentences
Spoiler
Based on the two articles above, my conclusion is that “Pŏngae” is assumed to be the name of the missile, not the name of the entire system with vehicle. (Just like we don’t call North Korean ATGM-equipped vehicles “Pulsae”.)
In game, modifications like this are not unprecedented. The 2S6 gains radar and optics as well as missiles with the 2S6M1 upgrade.
2 Likes
No worries, I’ll have a look myself :)
I think both sounds good, especially if one is stabilised + has APFSDS. Will have a look at adding it.
Very interesting. I haven’t heard that name before but, like you said, I can’t imagine why they would make up the name. I was basing the name on a couple of online sources + ‘The Armed Forces of North Korea’, which briefly mentions it as being the name for the vehicle itself, strangely in its base imported form and in the modified form.
“…is the Soviet legacy Strela-10M, delivered to the KPA during the 1980s and designated the Pongae-3, despite never entering indigenous production. … this flexibility was shown … when the system was … fitted with two canisters each containing four of the DPRK’s Igla-derived MANPADs.”
I think it does make more sense that the missiles themselves are named Pŏngae, rather than the vehicle. Thanks for those articles :)
1 Like