Big +1!
10 Likes
I love it! I personally might move some of the premiums to the main tree, but that’s just because I wanna play them! I also love how if there is a T-80, it becomes the top-tier squadron vehicle. It’s tradition now, and I hope that continues lol. +1 from me!
7 Likes
Thank you!
I originally had the Ch’ŏnma-92 and Ch’ŏnma-215 in the tree, but I felt it may have been a bit too cluttered, even if they were all foldered, but I know the feeling of just wanting to play everything, lol.
And yeah, I saw the T-80U and knew it had to be the squadron vehicle lmao ;)
7 Likes
Dont know If Im blind but a K-200 with a Cockerill Mk-3MA1 90mm
Spoiler
4 Likes
Already there ;)
5 Likes
I am curious about the 40mm as the design looks quite different from the standard K21…
(edit)
Better image found
3 Likes
It could be the angle, but it seems like the end of the barrel is missing. I’ll look into it, the ERA could easily be a separate modification.
1 Like
Nah see the end of the barrel between both versions are different, the muzzle on the standard seems to remind me of the bofors 40mm while the one above seems seperate…
2 Likes
oh wow… SK is or has made a 40mm CTA…
Different barrel tho so it cant be the one above…
6 Likes
After some basic googling, it seems to be a prototype K21 PIP with ERA and a soft-kill APS from around 2005. Here’s another image:
Although, I have to say the ERA looks a little suspicious, like it may be some sort of photoshop to show the proposed design.
4 Likes
Anything about the barrel, as from what ive seen some people think the 40mm on the standard k21 is a licenced copy of the bofors… but… idk
1 Like
Tho from this image it legit just might be a different muzzle break lol… or without the bofors style one as earlier down the barrel it seems it has a similar design to the one above… might just remove the cone…
3 Likes
I think it might just be removeable. Look at this picture, you can see the muzzlebrake on the floor in front of the vehicle.
I assume that’s the same for the image of the PIP.
2 Likes
Namuwiki documents usually do not have sources and contain many errors. Wikipedia has at least an obligation to indicate the source, but Namuwiki does not have that, so it cannot be used as a source.
2 Likes
I used the best ones I could find, they typically summarise information pretty well and I’ve seen sources for the important stuff. I only needed basic information anyway, which is rarely incorrect (engine power, top speed, etc.)
If/when I make suggestions on some of these vehicles, the sources used will be much better.
In Korea, if you use Namu Wiki as a source for an assignment, you will receive a deduction in points, and the social perception of Namu Wiki is very bad. Therefore, even if it was used to obtain simple information, it does not seem a good idea to list it in the source. United Korea Aviation TT, which was posted on and off the old forum, also received heavy criticism for using Namu Wiki as a source.
2 Likes
Same goes for Wikipedia in much of Europe. But the point is that I wasn’t making detailed descriptions for everything, it just needed very brief information that is very difficult to get wrong. I’ll have a look and see if I can replace some of the sources with better ones though :)
Broschure of KAFV
5 Likes
Always +1 to the United Korea tree.
But, SK T-80U shouldn’t be 11.3, since it has no thermal and can’t use 3BM46.
Also SK M36B2 has hull MG so it’s (almost)not identical.
And no K1E1?
8 Likes