Re: MBT's
 

Well then.......if "PO'OONG-HO and M-2002 " are one in the same then perhaps you or Marcello can explain why photo in post 111 shows a totally different turret than the tank in the photo in post 117. That was the subject of my post.... those are not photos of the same tank so which one is the P'okpoong-ho ( or however you like to translate Korean in to English ). If it's the photo in 111 then in cannot be 117 , it's that simple.

If 117 is the P'okpoong-ho then 111 is NOT the P'okpoong-ho. All the changes we made this last release were based on 111 being the P'okpoong-ho and if the M-2002 and the P'okpoong-ho are one in the same then what is 117 ???? One has a cast turret the other welded.

What I suspect is the photo in 111 is an early Ch'onma-Ho and it was mis-identified as a P'okpoong-ho . If not then we are right back to the original observation...... 117 has a totally different turrent and if 111 is the P'okpoong-ho then what is 117 ?



Don

Re: MBT's
 

compare and contrast the turret in 117 with the Chinese Type 90. I would suggest that whatever 117 is, it shares a close relationship with things Chinese.



Don

Re: MBT's
 

1. I believe what is pictured in Post #111 is the
Ch'onma-Ho III (Pegasus or Sky Horse as all mods are referred too.). The Ch'onma-Ho I & II should be mods to the (Same as the
T-62A.) T-62M. The Ch'onma-Ho III is married more closely to the T-62M 1975 as pictured in Post #111. Ch'onma-Ho IV & V are based on the T-62M 1975 with add on ERA packages and improved armor and FC. The Ch'onma-Ho V is also rumored to have a 125mm main gun, like the P'OKPOONG (However you want to spell it depending on ref used.).
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor...p?armor_id=392
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/T-62.html

2. P'OKPOONG is a stand alone tank with no known variants as attributed to the Ch'onma-Ho above. The T-62M1 series was the first to have the turret bra we see on the P'OKPOONG-Ho as the refs from my last post (And as I suggested earlier as well.) suggust with a stretched hull. It is more likely as suggested by article and pictures derived more closely from the T-62M1 as noted first in Post #109. The second ref makes the further analysis that there is a resemblance to the Chinese
Type85-II (I don't see it.) and hull of the Romanian TR-85M1 and TR-800.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor...p?armor_id=391
http://www.kpajournal.com/storage/KPAJ-1-06.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...na/type-85.htm

3. I offer this separately, one it has the typical ammo load out for a T-62 regardless of type. Some might recognize I've used this site many times, it's a Russian site, well anyway I hope it makes a difference here!?!
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product165.html

Regardless I'm off to bed, so...

Спокойной ночи мои друзья!

С уважением,
Стандартный
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

OK, I think we may be narrowing this down.

Don

Re: MBT's
 

The driver closer (or on) the centerline and others details rule out this possibility. Whatever this vehicle is...

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8236/3f420e58.jpg
http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/16/manpad.jpg
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/323/nkmanpad.jpg

it is not a straight T-62 knock off. Still based upon perhaps but not really a north korean T-62M 1975

These are supposed to be "Ch'onma-Ho III/IV" .

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/347...opaganda15.jpg

Former soviet up armored T-62 for comparison.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/915...onalarmy9r.jpg

Clearly they have tanks that are similar in conception to the
T-62M1. But the two new tanks types shown during the last parade are somewhat different.

Re: MBT's
 

Not necessarily disagreeing with the last, but I think what the refs and all this have shown is...

1. We are probably dealing with a 115mm vs. a 125mm main gun.

2. That the tanks are, and in some cases are heavily modified versions of the 5 different or so T-62 tanks made during it's production run I feel is an acceptable conclusion based on all the refs submitted thus far. Anything else would have serious ramifications to the game had it been proved these were based on the T-64 or T-72 tanks in both offensive power (125mm, FC etc.) or defensive attributes also associated with those tanks as compared to the T-62 line overall.

Got to work and it might hit 90+ today, what Spring!?!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Let's get back to the photo in post 117 shall we ?

Here's what we know

It is North Korean
It is NOT in any way the same turret as is shown in post 111

Maybe Kims messing with the West's heads by putting two different turrets on the same hull and sending them out on parade but if the photo in post 111 is indeed a P'okpoong-ho ... what is 117 ?

Don

Re: MBT's
 

Hulls are definitively not the same.
Round turret tank uses centerline driver.
http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/9...t201043eun.jpg

I bet this is what was referred as "Ch'onma-Ho V upgunned with 125mm gun" in the rumors a few years ago. Clearly however it is not just a Ch'onma-Ho III/IV with bigger gun. At a minimum it was substantial redesign, if not a new vehicle altogether.

This one would be the M-2002/whatever.
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4...oonghom200.jpg

Note the driver position.

Why they developed two designs is unclear but even the soviets made a mess with the
T-64/72/80 development. Maybe the square turret type is a more conservative development focused on improving armor protection, while the round turret type is the more radical design featuring improved firepower, with all the difficulties mastering the 125mm gun and related systems would entail. But it is pure speculation.

I think I've figured things out, so bear with me here.
1. Remember in Post #114 I talked about road wheels this will be important.
2. Also all the refs I've submitted and that have thus far been submitted have the origins of Cho and Po as the T-62 are we agreed here?
3. There is no record by reliable sources to indicate the North Koreans got any other newer tanks from Russia before relations broke down and NK turned to China for support. NK did receive full production licensing for the T-62 (For all variants.) from Russia as well as the production capacity to build them.
4. We are dealing with some mislabeled photos from different sources it looks like.
5. Again there are no known variants for the Po.
6. We know there are five variants of the Cho.
7. I haven't used those extra skills in a very long time as mentioned before, but after reading the last post and reviewing the pictures I found some differences.
8. Is as important as any we must remember with #3 above that NK has depending on whose number you wish to reference, they have from 1800 to 2600 T-62 tanks of all types total. So we will see standard tanks in basic design that will be slightly modified and updated from the base Russian models.

Ready:
A. Post #117 is the Po see the pic below from Post #106 top right tank. a. Note smoke grenade layout 2 slightly forward of the back 2 forming a "box". b. On the right forward corner, forward of the smoke grenades, an object resembling a "horn". c. Note the front top hull area. d. My picture submitted in Post #106 & #109 (And below.) for the Po match #117 and further shows the stretched hull indicated from my refs (JANES etc. so on and so forth.) with six road wheels.
Pics:
Attachment 11027 Attachment 11028

B. I want everyone to look at the same items as in A. above this is a mislabeled pic from many sources describing this tank as the Po. I think it's the Cho V. At a GLANCE and as I presented it to the left of the Po pic from Post #106, it looks like the same tank. Again I hit on the road wheels, there are
only five of them plus the differences of no "horn", dis-chargers are in a vertical line up and the front hull is different notice the replacement trend pieces, single headlight versus duel ones for the Po. Below I have re-posted what I now believe is the Cho V with the add on turret armor as compared to the Russian T-62M1. I did not relabel the pictures to illustrate the above point about them.
Pics:
Attachment 11029 Attachment 11030

C. Marcellos own posting (#125) identifies our other tanks as the Cho III/or IV from I assume his ref the way he wrote it up, so we all should be good there. Photo 4 are the later T-62 tanks that had the add on ERA and these are placed exactly as they were by the Russians on the, and please don't beat me up here, T-62E that was used in Afghanistan I believe, just Google it or something. Photo five looks just like the Russian T-62M1 as modified slightly by NK. But focus on the turret lines.
It could be a straight up T-62M1 or Cho V, hard to tell without more of a frontal view.

D. Understand I'm in no way trying to say these are the same as their Russian counter parts except for many of the older tanks. Some items I've read suggust the "break" from the Soviet era tank with NK upgrades occurred at the Cho III (And I don't care to debate this point personally just passing along a consensus of what I read.). That the Po is a further development and more capable tank then the Cho V I think is a logical conclusion.

E. I don't know what more I can do here, I wish I could have spotted these latest differences in the photos sooner-sorry. I've given the best possible refs I can to include JANES etc. which support most of what I've submitted especially concerning the Po. I think I'll take some of those "over sight" ARJUN tanks in there and just kill a bunch of Cho and Po tanks. I'm ready to move onto the following:
Attachment 11033

CINCLANTHOME is going to have my...for this if I'm not up to greet the granddaughter in the morning!! Good Night well missed that, Good Morning!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Attachment 11029

Personally I have the impression that this is just a III/IV with added armor screens. If you look closely at the coax port area you can see a V chaped armor section surrounding it, not well covered by the armor screen. This is identical to the same section in the picture of the III/IV. I would guess it is a modest improvement of the III/IV, perhaps a retrofit of existing vehicles.