Honestly, probably more real. North Korea spends much higher % of GDP on military than POCCIA. That being said it most likely only looks like a modern tank.
>Those guns can shoot ATGM with 4-5 km of range
Those have 125mm caliber vs 150mm of add in launcher and penetrate less, 900mm vs 1200mm. Also double add on launcher can fire 2 missiles at once to counter APS.
>900mm vs 1200mm.
If they're of comparable tech and standoff then the difference would be 900 vs 1080 mm. Still a 20% of improvement. At the cost of having exposed ammo to any shrapnel.
>to counter APS
Wishful thinking. Even if the Trophy is limited in its current block it's able to track multiple incoming misisles, it's just a matter of adding a second epr.
The APS iron fist already does that.
That without taking into account future APS's with better range.
2 identical missiles isn't gonna work against APS irl.
IRL the mindless spamming of missiles is a waste of time and the operator is gonna be located immediately.
soviet tanks can shoot ATGM from barrel, which is better than having extra ATGM added on top
Any shaped charge has it's penetration limited by the charge diameter, an external launcher allows for a larger charge diameter and better pen.
Not the worst option if you are short on money and want to up-gun your tanks without actually replacing the gun.
Or simply add a third shaped charge on tandem, tech developed in the 90s but not even needed.
125/120/105mm HEAT-FS is enough to destroy most tanks, let alone missiles that have less restrictions.
The main countering to HEAT is ERA and APS (in the future) not plain protection.
The idea of adding missiles is good but not cheap and it doesn't make tanks more useful to snipe target from 5km, just use a lighter and faster vehicle as platform.
>Or simply add a third shaped charge on tandem
Shaped charged penetration doesn't add up easily. Because shaped charge slug plugs penetration hole and following shaped charge needs to penetrate this plug. There are slugless shaped charge designscbut I am not sure anyone made stack able tandem with them.
Anyway 125mm Reflex-M gun launched ATGM is rated for 900mm pen. 150mm Kornet is rated for 1200mm pen, winner is clear.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>plugs
kek, pic rel.
> is rated for 1200mm pen,
"1000-1200mm". (100)
>winner is clear.
You're just concentrating all the firepower in a vehicle. 2 kornet + 1 tank is inferior to a tank with a ATGM and a vehicle with a kornet.
Reported to have 800mm pen, less than tandem 125mm Relfex-M ATGM with 900mm pen
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's old tech, compare it with contemporany HEAT-FS with 650mm of pen. 20% of improvement with a very restricted size. An warhead have fewer limitations than a HEAT-FS.
I love how moronic these threads are >body kit added 4 road wheels >It's a Tow that came from china, ignore the North Korean Kornets being used daily in Syria >Everything is fake, ignore all the DPRK equipment the US military has obtained and tested >They don't have real tanks, ignore the hundreds used in Africa and the middle east >They don't have fire control, source: my ass >The Kornet launchers ATGM launchers are really AA >It's sheet metal and cardboard, ignore all of combat tested armored vehicles they have been exporting for decades
>Doesn't answer any criticisims of their BS >Uses unrelated single isolated case that isn't even from their own example, that was Yemen >Adds nothing to the conversation besides proving their own ignorance of the subject matter
Anon the claim was that the Kornets were intended as AA missiles, that is silly because they use AA missiles for that. It isn't moving the goalposts, it is proving the premise of the origional statment was wrong. While ATGMs can be used (poorly) for AA in specific siduations that is obviously not the case here, especially with a nation that puts both on tanks at the same time:
A couple years ago in another thread, you could clearly see it was cardboard armor put on an older tank. The pics had better angle and resolution, but the dead give away was the very bad uniformity of the armor and that you could see the actual tank under in some places.
North Korea has exactly one T-72, a partially destroyed Iraqi Ural. T
That is a streched out T-62 based hull with two extra road wheels based on T-72 wheels as well as the sprockets.Note that it is about 3-4 generations removed from the T-62, noticably the driver location.
The turret is most likely a Song gun ho turret (notice really big turret ring) with the boxy add ons hiding whatever they replaced the eyebrow add on armor with.
Kinda looks like a body kit
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/new-north-korean-mbt/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2020_tank
Armata the second
Honestly, probably more real. North Korea spends much higher % of GDP on military than POCCIA. That being said it most likely only looks like a modern tank.
There is already more of them, than there is of Armata.
1. it can move
2. it's made from cardboard
so 10% more real than Armata
>cardboard
They upgraded to plywood in the fucking 90s you arrogant fuck.
>fucking north korea has better tanks to show off at parades than ziggers do
why would you need a TOW launcher if you have a good balistic computer for your main gun? same with russian tanks 2K25 Krasnopol
They'd allow for basic surface to air capabilities in a pinch which is probably important given how mountainous korea is.
The tank has zero actual fire control. It's a TOW carrier (or Kornet, whatever China gibs them).
This missile has much more penetration and accuracy at 3+km than Soviet tank guns.
> Soviet tank guns.
Those guns can shoot ATGM with 4-5 km of range.
Soviets guns never were bad in first place. The problem is the carousel of the self-loader that makes them vulnerable and harder to use long darts.
>Those guns can shoot ATGM with 4-5 km of range
Those have 125mm caliber vs 150mm of add in launcher and penetrate less, 900mm vs 1200mm. Also double add on launcher can fire 2 missiles at once to counter APS.
>900mm vs 1200mm.
If they're of comparable tech and standoff then the difference would be 900 vs 1080 mm. Still a 20% of improvement. At the cost of having exposed ammo to any shrapnel.
>to counter APS
Wishful thinking. Even if the Trophy is limited in its current block it's able to track multiple incoming misisles, it's just a matter of adding a second epr.
The APS iron fist already does that.
That without taking into account future APS's with better range.
2 identical missiles isn't gonna work against APS irl.
IRL the mindless spamming of missiles is a waste of time and the operator is gonna be located immediately.
> second epr.
second EFP.
Any shaped charge has it's penetration limited by the charge diameter, an external launcher allows for a larger charge diameter and better pen.
Not the worst option if you are short on money and want to up-gun your tanks without actually replacing the gun.
Or simply add a third shaped charge on tandem, tech developed in the 90s but not even needed.
125/120/105mm HEAT-FS is enough to destroy most tanks, let alone missiles that have less restrictions.
The main countering to HEAT is ERA and APS (in the future) not plain protection.
The idea of adding missiles is good but not cheap and it doesn't make tanks more useful to snipe target from 5km, just use a lighter and faster vehicle as platform.
>Or simply add a third shaped charge on tandem
Shaped charged penetration doesn't add up easily. Because shaped charge slug plugs penetration hole and following shaped charge needs to penetrate this plug. There are slugless shaped charge designscbut I am not sure anyone made stack able tandem with them.
Anyway 125mm Reflex-M gun launched ATGM is rated for 900mm pen. 150mm Kornet is rated for 1200mm pen, winner is clear.
>plugs
kek, pic rel.
> is rated for 1200mm pen,
"1000-1200mm". (100)
>winner is clear.
You're just concentrating all the firepower in a vehicle. 2 kornet + 1 tank is inferior to a tank with a ATGM and a vehicle with a kornet.
I forgot the pic.
That's a HEAT-FS with more restrictions on size than a ATGM
Reported to have 800mm pen, less than tandem 125mm Relfex-M ATGM with 900mm pen
It's old tech, compare it with contemporany HEAT-FS with 650mm of pen. 20% of improvement with a very restricted size. An warhead have fewer limitations than a HEAT-FS.
>conremporany
contemporary
soviet tanks can shoot ATGM from barrel, which is better than having extra ATGM added on top
It''s a t-55 with a body kit from the looks of it, the gunner periscope slit is still there.
M2020 has seven road wheels and a 125mm gun, obviously not a T-55 body kit.
Can you at least try to make better bait.
>Norks are fielding Armatabrams
They truly are best korea
>Armatabrams
There is nothing from Armata in this tank.
Abrams yeah. Same layout but with autoloader.
No autoloader, they kept the gun but think the autoloader is garbage.
I've always assumed these "new tanks" are mostly sheet metal and painted iron.
I love how moronic these threads are
>body kit added 4 road wheels
>It's a Tow that came from china, ignore the North Korean Kornets being used daily in Syria
>Everything is fake, ignore all the DPRK equipment the US military has obtained and tested
>They don't have real tanks, ignore the hundreds used in Africa and the middle east
>They don't have fire control, source: my ass
>The Kornet launchers ATGM launchers are really AA
>It's sheet metal and cardboard, ignore all of combat tested armored vehicles they have been exporting for decades
considering that T-34 with externally triggered gun is good enough for Syria and Africa I don't think Norks weapon presence proves it's not shit
>Doesn't answer any criticisims of their BS
>Uses unrelated single isolated case that isn't even from their own example, that was Yemen
>Adds nothing to the conversation besides proving their own ignorance of the subject matter
Yep, nu PrepHole in a nutshell.
>you can't use atgm's against some air targets
Anon North Korea puts AA missiles on their tanks for that, you might be able to find a few pictures of them.
Moving the goalposts.
Anon the claim was that the Kornets were intended as AA missiles, that is silly because they use AA missiles for that. It isn't moving the goalposts, it is proving the premise of the origional statment was wrong. While ATGMs can be used (poorly) for AA in specific siduations that is obviously not the case here, especially with a nation that puts both on tanks at the same time:
>2 ATGMs
>2 MANPADs
>2 AGSs
How long until they put two cannons on there?
Raised deck over the engine, 14.5mm point defense gun.
Although lately they have only been using single AGLs as standard, they might be calming down a bit. I hope not.
I can count more of it on this picture than t-14 russia has produced so its more real
A couple years ago in another thread, you could clearly see it was cardboard armor put on an older tank. The pics had better angle and resolution, but the dead give away was the very bad uniformity of the armor and that you could see the actual tank under in some places.
>Source: It came to me in a dream
Are you the same guy ranting in the book thread about how Russia is going to bomb North Korea because you think they stole your magic belt buckle?
>clearly see it was cardboard armor
They jus copied Abrams, very simple and cheap armor.
New bodykit for T-72 dropped again?
North Korea has exactly one T-72, a partially destroyed Iraqi Ural. T
That is a streched out T-62 based hull with two extra road wheels based on T-72 wheels as well as the sprockets.Note that it is about 3-4 generations removed from the T-62, noticably the driver location.
The turret is most likely a Song gun ho turret (notice really big turret ring) with the boxy add ons hiding whatever they replaced the eyebrow add on armor with.
Pop goes the Wiesl
Why are they tan?
looks like an armata trying to cosplay as an abrams