K1E2 Main Battle Tank - Officially Revealed
- Having a physical vehicle makes it easier for future tech tree additions.
5 Likes
Some more images of the the M2020 MBT while conducting some exercises.
https://x.com/kpa_bot/status/1768028058286698871?s=46&t=ADFEmEoj2lml_XVCg7xJpQ
1 Like
2 Likes
Amazing! The sights finally look real as well.
There are 4 crew members per unit, which proves that this vehicle does not have an autoloader.
Meanwhile, here’s one more noteworthy photo. A plaque on a tank commonly known incorrectly as “Pokpung-ho” was identified, which reads “Ch’ŏnma-(content covered by the body of a soldier)”. This, along with the two existing articles(Han 2013 and Choi 2013), is proof that the name “Pokpung-ho” or “Phokphungho” does not exist.
2 Likes
I thought so, but at the angle I couldn’t really tell which crew members belonged to which vehicle. I think I can see it though. Will edit my M2020 suggestion accordingly.
I saw that plaque as well, noted it on my Ch’onma-216 suggestion. Very good confirmation to have.
1 Like
It’s a bit facetious to talk about the Type 69’s APFSDS as “100mm APFSDS” while the M48 has a “90mm APFSDS” - when the Type 69’s APFSDS is the worst APFSDS in the entire game…
I also don’t see any “M48A3K” existing. Only the M48A2G at 8.3 with THIS APFSDS.
I’m not saying that the Type 69 is OP or anything. By M48A3K at 8.0 I mean in the tree proposal.
By referring to the calibre I was only talking about the slightly better damage potential it has. 105mm > 100mm > 90mm, etc.
And I was more focusing on the fact it has a stab, whereas the M48 wouldn’t. My point is that, while the M48A3K would do good at 8.0, it is slightly outclassed by the also 8.0 Type 69, as both have very similar penetration, with the Type 69 having slightly increased damage, similar mobility, both having a LRF, but only the Type 69 has a stabiliser.
They wouldn’t have the similar penetration if the M48A3K’s APFSDS isn’t a short rod steel shot. Is it?
I was going off of what was said here. It appears to even be slightly better than Type 71 APFSDS.
Penetration isn’t what matters as much as angle performance and dropoff (specifically encircled in red).
The Type 71 only pens 170mm at a mere kilometer.
The newest North Korean tank (designation so far is unknown but its also known as “M2020” but has also been associated with the number “148”) got an ERA kit installed.
3 Likes
Yup, same ERA kit as the 2023 parade version. Very likely some derivative of Kontakt 1 or 5. Will probably change the names in the tree to M2020 (P) for the original 2020 variant, then just M2020 for this one.
UPDATE
New Vehicles:
- Plasan Sandcat: BR 11.3, Rank VIII
- Black Fox (RCWS-30): BR 10.3, Rank VII
- K9A2: BR 7.7, Rank V
Renamed Vehicles:
- K1E1 (120) –> K1A1 (P)
- K1E1 (105) –> K1E1
- M2020 –> M2020 (P)
- M2020 (2023) –> M2020
Moved Vehicles:
- M2020 (P): BR 11.3 –> 11.0, Rank VIII –> Rank VII
Removed Vehicles:
- KM424
- M60A1
1 Like
Looks fun…M2024 MBT
3 Likes
Definitely. No differences to the 2023 version as far as I can tell, so I’ve just named it M2020 until we get an actual name.
2 Likes
@Stona_WT When will this become a thing? People have been asking for years yet you people haven’t done anything about it.
3 Likes
Songun-ho, which had not been seen since 2018, was recently discovered.
4 Likes
Will put these here because they’re interesting, and even if they won’t see the light of day any time soon (or ever), they show what could be added to a Korean tree in the future.
Hanwha’s proposals at ADEX 2023 for new K-NIFV and derivatives to replace the K21:
- K-NIFV with new 40mm CTA cannon (currently in development), ATGMs and an RCWS
- Fire support vehicle (K-MPF) with a 105mm cannon, APS, ATGMs and ERA. Designed for the export market
- ATGM carrier with 2 tubes of 6x NLOS ATGMs (probably SPIKE’s)
3 Likes
Those look like Iron Fist sensors, right?