Honestly I find North Korean vehicles fascinating given the massive restrictions on resources they have and how their regime has managed to stick around while the old USSR crumbled
@@edwardgiovannelli5191 I'm aware of the famine from the 90's. That said, it's still fascinating given that the regime has remained after over 70 years. And unlike other monarchies like Saudi Arabia, they seem to actually have developed an in house weapons industry
@@georgekostaras Thankfully for Kim the Fat's dynasty, China steps in as DPRK's caretaker soon after the USSR fell. Now, DPRK is like a NEET kid living on mommy China's basement, leeching off China's money to fill their needs, utterly dependant on China to keep existing.
Not that hard to understand. USSR crumbled because people realized how bad their quality of life was, compared to the West. Glasnost gave people more freedom and information, which in turn further accelerated the demise of the Soviet Union. When presented with free elections and the decision to either stay in the Soviet Union, or leave, people decided to leave. In the case of the North Korea, this never happened. Easier to control the population when the population is ignorant, subservient to the state, and doesn't know any better. What's worse is that even if people do know the "truth," what keeps them from speaking out or escaping is retaliation against their family.
Also, the North Korean Tanks don't have autoloader because there's a Hatch besides the commander Hatch which was similiar with T-62 (which don't have autoloader)
@@Kalashnikov413 though a T-72 also has 2 hatches cause the commander sits on the right side and gunner on the left. We really would need to see the inside of one to say for sure.
@@Kalashnikov413 in wars so far, T62's showed off better for the crew than T72s, as they didnt explode when being hit, which wasnt case with T72s. More crews of t62s survived hits than those of T72s
More like Kim saw a picture of this tank and due to his western education doesn't feel Soviet tanks look cool. So he ordered them to make western looking tanks. For a country low on food and everything else necessary they sure have budget to make crappy copies of western tanks. Even if parade models. It costs materials and man hours to make.
@@rozniyusof2859 you joke, but rouge states like nk definitely use the internet to get way more detailed intelligence of foreign nations and equipment that could even be dreamed of during the cold war, and that can include youtube. Sometimes it has more humorous results. I know for example China used the visuals from a Matt Lowne KSP video to enounce a new ICBM a couple of years ago.
@@Tom-uk2ow 10-20 million homeless (assuming the stat is even true) is rather small, considering the US population is only 331 million (making 10 million ~3%) however the stat is not correct, atleast according to HUD’s Annual Point-in-Time Count in jan 2019, which found only 567,715 through out the entirety of the USA. endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-2020/ this represents only 17 out of every 10 000 people. or 0.17% of the US population. stop with your propaganda
@@米空軍パイロット he thinks there are millions of homeless people in america, despite the only reliable data says there is less that 600 000. do you really think he would bother to actually check his statement is correct?
It only has to look good The North Koreans know in a full-scale war they're dead so it doesn't have to go into combat it just has to look good on the parade ground
its all so clear to me now. the reason war thunder vehicles dont get parts right away is because every vehicle is part of the North Korean army and to get parts you need to prove yourself to the glorious leader!
I wouldnt be surprised if this tank is just a hull with an outer casing that makes it look like it has features similar to the Armata. Just think about it. If modern day tanks are just simplistic hulls with modular armor and systems. One can just make a box that looks like the modular system and drive around with that making it seem more, but in reality is just an empty metal "storage" box.
I think they just welded new parts on extended T-62/72 chassis and made it look modern. Think about it. Driver position is same, exhaust is same, etc...
@@eesti919 the expense of modifying them to have an extra road wheel would make it not worth it. In fact the entire thing would be so expensive they might as well just make a real one. I'm guessing it is functional at its core, but its armour is likely significantly below modern standards (in line with their other tanks) and the fancy extras are likely entirely non-functional. Whether or not they're intended to ever be functional, who knows. They'd need a lot of Chinese parts and frankly who knows what state even China's are in
Even then Russia doesn’t have enough armata’s, the Russian military doesn’t advance much at all. They always show off cool new tech but only build very few of them.
there was an interview with a North Korean defector who was an information officer for the DPRK. She mentions that a lot of these new tanks are actually just mock-ups and also the new things you tend to see on this parade and previous parades are exactly the only amount of new things they have. What's funny is that during the parades once they are out of sight of their glorious leader, some of the soldiers (and women officers) have to run to the back change outfits and then run to the start of the parade while vehicles drive around back to the start just to march/drive again to give the illusion that they have alot of them. And they have to do this PERFECTLY, no mistakes allowed and that marching style is extremely painful and tiring which gave the people doing them long term health issues. Also, the DPRK doesn't have the fuel to keep most if not all of these new toys running nevermind the older models. They could barely even fuel their airforce, running a practice and training flights only once a year, probably less these days.
alot of the so call defector are fake and we do not depend on them as reliable. they will say anything to make themselves sound more important so foreign intelliegence will pay them but we know they are not being honest. if they want to prove they know something, they have to show documentation. never believe in word of mouth. iraqi word of mouth claim there is WMD in iraq, where is that WMD today?
@@Captain_wikee27 this is why the west is in decline, it is no longer capable of understanding the inportance of truth. to have an opinion or position based on lies and confusion is a recipe for disasters... Iraq and Afghanistan are examples, even if you "win", you lose at the end, reality never bend.
That’s just cruel they gotta grind for the spare parts first before they can repair their tanks. Sucks that they aren’t able to spend golden eagles to buy it immediately.
Most North Korean equipment, at least from what I heard from other analysts on RU-vid or other media, is real and functional as North Korea doesn't have the money and time to make such accurate props and actually outfit their army as well. The only time they do mock-ups are for ICBMs and prototype weapons that are still being worked on. Personally I think this vehicle is real, albeit in a very early stage and probably not fully functional as domestic production and research of the technology required continues.
@@pavelalexe9254 maybe they were trying to say that if you're gonna spend time designing a tank, then you might as well design one that WOULD work. so if you're gonna design a mockup, might as well make that mockup WORK
@@re57k But it is many times cheaper to just weld some Steel together and paint it than to built a MBT with actual composite armor, APS etc. And also why would they built new MBTs in the first place ?! The only real thread the country poses is its nuclear capability they desperately try to keep running, their army is strong in numbers but i doubt they can actually keep it running effectively with that weak of an economy.
@@pavelalexe9254 Perhaps if you read my entire comment, you would see I said that they don't have the time and money to do both props and real weapons. The point I'm trying to say is that they can only do one or the other and obviously they'd use their limited time and resources to make something they can use.
@@Tom-uk2ow my comrade I'm from glorious eastern block. I'm no rich capitalist pig I'm worker in factory working for glory and good of people and our cocialist friends
..came across your channel by chance and am quite happy that I did. Very much in agreement with your analysis and impressed by your accuracy and content. I"m a 24 year veteran of the US Army , 19Z, 11Z, a retired Master Gunner on the Abrams, Bradley and Light Cavalry Gunnery. Taught quite a bit on AFVID with experience going back to US Army Border Observer at the East German/ Czech Border in 1989. Instructor at Armor School specialized in AFVID 91-92. Deployments and Exchanges with Armor, Infantry, and Recon communities with the IDF, Bundesheer, British, Canadian,Australian, and French armies. Keep up the good work!
North Korean tanks are the only tanks in the world with nuclear cold fusion propulsion! (Same propulsion used in their new Kim Il Sung class Atlantic submarines) North Korea rules the world!!!!!
America did it in the 50s with the Chrysler tank was never produced because no one wants top operate a mobile nuclear bomb where even if you survive the atgm you won’t survive the massive radiation leak
Despite it's label of 'The Hermit Kingdom', the best way to understand North Korea is that it is a "catspaw" state. The NorKs nuclear program is heavily funded, AND staffed by Iranians (which puts them safely out the reach of the MOSSAD and the Israeli Air Force). The current series of sanctions against the NorKs is largely smoke and mirrors; the NorKs make good money under the table by exporting drugs, counterfeit currency, and knock-offs of known weapons, and munitions (most of which is sold to Iran). If you want 'plausible deniability' for something dark, dirty, or dangerous...for the right price, the NorKs will do it for you. THAT is how the Hermit Kingdom is currently staying above water; is it a sustainable plan? Only time will tell. The current word is that the only thing holding the country together is unofficial smuggling by the elites, and mass public executions. Most of you out there have no reference points to understand just how dire the existence of the average NorK really is at this point in time. Are the tanks in this video real? Yes, and no...yeah, they're real enough to motor thru a set-piece parade; are they going to storm across the 38th Paradelle (or exported for the right amount of cash)? I'd bet no.
Three major points of contention: "Reeeeeeeeeeee, DPRK can't develop the hardware and software for their FCS to compete with modern MBTs, reeeeeeeeeeee" Need anyone reminding that Abrams is the first MBT to land a claim to have a digital FCS? And that it's also 40 years old now? And most modern consumer grade electronics that are in any capacity a computer outperforms it in leaps and bounds? When it was a pioneer in the field, sure it was an expensive endeavor. Nowadays you can download a Nikon app to do the ballistic drop calculations for you, based on the calliber, ballistic coefficient, wind strength and direction, pressure, humidity etc. and Nikon made it on a shoestring budget, because SDKs exist. Sure it's one thing to put that on a phone, then everyone could make a download from the app store and it's another thing to develop something that would actively work on a tank, but making things endure the rigours of military life is generally a process of simplification and making hardware bigger and thus more resilient. SDKs are still a valid point also, with all sorts of consumer grade operative systems, there's little to no reason to develop a proprietary system, dedicated for one job, when your FCS could literally be built off a glorified Linux system and perform much the same. Cue license expiry and BSOD memes here. While the APS appears visually like the Afganit, by no means does it mean, nor should it imply it's a copy thereof, when developing own system, based on other existing designs exist. Arena is basically late 80s, Trophy has been around since what? The 90s? I don't know much about PRC hard-kill, but it doesn't mean DPRK couldn't have just copied an older gen system with locally made upgrades to the system and laid them out a different fashion. The same country that seemingly has almost no GDP simultaneously also develops rockets that now infest the waters of the Japanese sea, slowly giving birth to Godzilla and also everyone is convinced they got nukes, so let's bury them in more sanctions, but simultaneously they're really just angry and poor and can't actually build anything. Got it. The last point is the CITV: Considering how primitive is the "NV" camera and considering the location of said "CITV" this really looks more like systems found on T-80U and AMX-40's commander's stations. They offer 360 degree view, yes, but they're analogue systems. Aka mechanical and umm... Aren't actually a thermal imager, though for this tank could be an image intensifier or a very early gen of non-digital thermal imaging. The cheap hardware argument that would work for the FCS doesn't apply to the CITV for a reason. Namely because thermal imagers are universally expensive items, because well... Glass isn't actually transparent to thermal imaging. Something else translucent and very, VERY expensive is that the thermal imaging recepticles require. I'm willing to put my money down that "CITV" is a mechanical system and not actually a thermal imager at all. Again - possibly an image intensifier, which are exponentially cheaper just in the cost of raw materials alone. They chose a manual loading system, like I stated FCS is probably a lot less complicated and cheaper than the proprietary systems of the 80s, by my view asuming more than just the hull of this tank is real, this tank is meant to be as modern an MBT as DPRK can get, all the while staying on a pretty strict budget. Autoloader is expensive and unnecessary, hence the presense of a human loader. While CITV would be a great advantage, no amount of performance would justify the price, basing APS on old and field-tested systems makes more sense in both the terms of expenditure and development than being Afganit that magically appeared in DPRK If the vehicle is really what DPRK plans to build and fill their ranks with, then the hardware should be taken with the same slant as T-72B3 (and for the uninitiated, make note that B3 is cheaper and more simple upgrade than the B2 Rogatka, because Russians couldn't afford such an expensive upgrade as B2 to their aging T-72Bs. Bigger number isn't necessarily better or more advanced) . It's meant to keep pace and be "good enough", not contend with the latest and greatest. I'd put it as an awkward middle between T-80 and T-90 and tanks like Leopard 2 and Abrams in terms of baseline design and how it's meant to perform. It still has Soviet legacy systems, where it makes sense to, upgraded with additional subsystems widespread in the Western tanks, but it also dispenses with complex engineering items like autoloaders, favoring the increased internal volume of the fighting compartment, reducing the crew's susceptibility to the armor perforation, which Soviet tanks all had an endemic issue across the board. If built to the advertised spec, it definitely contends with K1A1, once both vehicles see one another, but I doubt this tank would be able of Hunter-Killer operations or even laying an effective ambush independently, largely because I really do not think it has any thermal imaging whatsoever and would have to rely on scouts and observation vehicles for them and even then, those probably do not have thermal imagers either, making their night fighting capability only acceptable once the shots are being fired and positions are known. This does justify the APS and warning receivers - both are cheaper than thermal imagers, so, more or less the design seems to imply that they're meant to walk into enemy fire and work from there. A grim prospect, but APS and ERA raises the crews chances of surviving the first incoming shots and hopefully for them making their way to a safer fighting position, while the rest of the team lay fire to the source of the shots. And yes that type of tactic would in fact take some massive balls to execute both correctly and maintain that discipline, not gonna lie that kind of prospect would get me spooked, no matter how great my leadership would make out my tank's armor to be. "You are MEANT to take shots for the motherland in this." sort of runs counter to the typical tanker maxim that says "no matter what, assume you've no armor whatsoever if you want to survive.".
You make good points, but the point about the fire-control system seems a bit awry to me. Sure, there are modern handheld ballistic computers, but they don't automatically aim the weapon like a modern MBT's fire control system. Tech has come a long way, but if manufacturing quality isn't keeping up, the tech is useless.
@@Horseshoecrabwarrior it's not hard to add functionality to such software. Even amateur modders managed to emulate FCS in video games as old as Operation Flashpoint and when you remove unnecessary graphical interfaces, keeping to bare minimums as like Linux does, the system requirements for a FCS drop exponentially. This is why servers that run the sites of legal companies have something like 256mb of RAM and can get away with it, because they themselves keep that stuff for the client side to deal with and FCS on Abrams isn't that much smarter than those aforementioned servers either. Point is, nowadays the hardware that would be robust enough to hold the minimum necessary programming is entirely possible, while they don't even need to make a proprietary programming language to set it up - it would need to work with all the sensors it has, but every sensor is pretty much a line of code with it's own rule sets and constraints, they don't really make up data as they go, they're essentially dynamic ballistic tables, adding additional sensors doesn't tax the FCS nowhere near as much as some make it out to be - it's basically "if wind direction is such, the speed is this, own velocity and direction is this, ammo load is this, then the correction needed is this for the set range". Even then, the system only needs to operate most the time correctly to be able to be put out and fielded and bug fixing and optimization can come later, assuming that DPRK didn't spend much time developing it between the initial design and release on parade, in other words was rushed, though I do not see why that would be the case, it is probably possible? That depends entirely how much ambition was put to having this vehicle on this specif parade, I guess. And yeah, that actually does sound bad, if it works "most the time", equally as bad as US Patriot launchers not actually guarding the airspace during the Gulf War, because the launchers "were not designed to put on standby for extended periods of time". Patriot wasn't scrapped for it, it was eventually fixed, there was zero fault with it's hardware, but it was all the fault in the programming. If they have the minum hardware needed and have programming gaps right now, they can be filled in over time as the vehicle undergoes proving ground trials.
@@Galatz_Tirah Frankly, I believe the software and electronic parts of the FCS to be the easy parts. The part that I see becoming an issue is the interface between the weapon and the FCS. North Korea isn't exactly known for its precision machining and high-quality ammunition factories, and quality issues with the gun, gun control systems, and ammunition could easily degrade the effectiveness of a integrated computer FCS to the point where it is less cost-effective than a skilled gunner using a scope. I'm not suggesting that they couldn't produce an Abrams-tier FCS if they tried, just that they aren't good enough at it yet for it to be worth the resources.
@@Horseshoecrabwarrior we don't actually know how good or bad their manufacture really is, we don't even know if any parts were outsourced. FCS however would still be beneficial, because what FCS does is the job of a glorified slide table: >selected ammunition type is this, therefore ballistic coefficient is this >lazed range is this, therefore ballistic drop compensation needs to be this >own speed and direction is this, therefore rate of closure and change of angle, relative to the target is this >wind, elevation, humidity and pressure is this, therefore these adjustments are made This much they can do, I wouldn't be surprised at all. Here's the real caveat. All that is 80s technology at least. The most modern FCS can also understand the speed and direction of the lazed target and have the FCS adjust for those changes, the most modern FCS can do hunter-killer operations and is capable of active target tracking. That is the capability of the latest gen FCS and this type of adjustment is something that I do not believe for a second that this tank has, that's out of the question, the hardware just isn't there... How do you make a sensor or programming that does understand what's a lazed target and where and why is it moving? That was figured out, but it's nowhere near as commonplace among the AFVs of any kind at this time. Additionally, the stabilization of this tank is in all likelihood a single plane stabilization, something that Abrams only had, until M1A2 when it finally had a two plane stabilization introduced. Now these features even by countries that make military exports and have all of their equipment domestically made, such as the US, PRC, Russia, France and some others, not all of their front line units have the aforementioned capabilities and as such is definitely out of question for DPRK to have. While most the thoughts regarding the FCS of a tank are under the impression that the round to benefit the most is APFSDS, HEAT-FS and even canister rounds also have their own targeting data and as such benefit. T-62 was probably the first tank to roll out with a close to modern concert of gun and fire control system - the nominal bore pressure of 115mm 2A20 is actually very similar to the 120mm Rheinmetall L44 and was the first smoothbore gun, which also used APFSDS from the getgo, along with a "Meteor" stabilization system, that theoretically made it irrelevant for the gunner whether the tank was stationary or on the move and at full speed. That was the 60s. Also 60s are the era of Chieftain, which had a comparable FCS, but nowhere near as good stabilization (having said that "Meteor" stabilization was an almost extreme rarity, because it was extremely expensive at the time, it doesn't make the "average" T-62 better than the Chieftain, but it gives the potential "better") and well DPRK held on to the 115mm gun for a really long time. The gun that is much comparable to the modern ones and is highly underrated and forgotten. The specific quality of ammunition is another question, but rather it's a question of how well it's engineered vs "manufactured". APFSDS ammo is actually a pretty low tech weapon and many forget that and just recently it was announced that another uranium enrichment plant was built in DPRK, and it's entirely possible they're not wasting it's biproduct - depleted uranium. My personal opinion is that it entirely can be as good as M1A1 or K1A1, or rather slightly behind them - the housings for the gunner's sights are still small by comparison and much more Russian in appearance, which should mean that DPRK didn't even try to convince anyone that gunner has a thermal imager - it clearly does not and this is where it truly falls behind the Abrams and K1 of any generation, unlike those tanks, you need to make out the target with your naked eyes. But no, it's definitely no M1A2, T-14 or any other tank that had debuted even remotely recently. I'd say it's not as good as K2, but K2 has some issues, such as armor that's... Hilariously thin and the APS that ROK promised to implement with it never happened. FCS-wise K2 is definitely the superior tank though. Overall, it should be taken as a handicapped K1A1 with better protection systems.
@@zava5025 Brazil, not being a hermit country can outsource with relative ease. This also applies to adhering to whatever stadards had been drawn up by any country they intend to sell it to. The Ossorio was cheaper and lighter, while on technicalities, a relatively comparable vehicle, though it's shortcomings left both Saudis and Brazilians at home relatively unconvinced, as neither opted to procur more vehicles. Ironically if Brazil was sanctioned or restricted in trade, it's more probable that Ossorio would have been adopted at home, though the necessary imports go under question.
President of Afghanistan "thank god, america is leaving, we can finally direct ourselves even if we lose a civil war" "excuse me sir, north korea painted all its vehicles desert tan and about 60 unmarked cargo ships just parked in pakistan" PoA "fuck."
North korea and iran have a weapon sharing pact. The north koreans assist iran in ICBMs and the iranians help them with tanks and even tested em in Syria.
@@lil__boi3027 North Korea manufactures tanks for the Iranian military, Iran fielded like 10 of them in Syria and 3 in Iraq alongside their own tanks they made.
Excellent analysis, I'm always amazed at how much information can be gleaned from open-source information, even on a nation like North Korea. I think you're being a bit too lenient with your conclusion though, given that not even Russia can seem to find the money to field the T-14 in meaningful numbers there is simply no way the North Koreans can produce a tank like this, even purchasing off-the-shelf components from China they'd bankrupt themselves just designing those few working prototypes for the parade. It's a deception campaign entirely, if they have any sense (which they do, they just pretend to be irrational lunatics) they're pouring the little money they have into their nuclear program and delivery systems because that is the only thing that can save them in a war. They can shell Seol to dust and throw a thousand fancy tanks at the border and they'll still be decimated from the air and South Korea would survive the victor. However, nukes alone if mounted on a credible delivery vehicle can hold the world at bay, and in the end cost a whole hell of a lot less than maintaining an army and airforce that hopes to even slow NATO down (let alone take the south).
Russians r planning on Mass producing the T-14 for the next 30-40 yrs. The new North Korean tank looks similar, it does not have a fully automatic turret.
actually: I believe that those "grenade launchers" is an active protection system. a system used in the T-14 armada for intercepting explosives and other projectiles in mid-air with a small grenade-like explosive
@@tatotaytoman5934 actually working active protection exist since the 80s on the last soviet prototype MBT Of course it had some quirks to work and it was relative expensive for the time Edit so is possible that the Russian sell the design to Korea
North Korea is very hard to judge. On the one hand, it visually checks most of the boxes for a modern MBT. However, North Korea is also known for its show pieces and hollow displays. It's entirely possible that they copied the looks of NATO and more modern Russian tanks without actually having the technology that backs it up. I always find it hard to believe when a nation suddenly leapfrogs forward in multiple areas, especially when that nation is as isolated as North Korea is. Now, it's possible that China or Russia has lent them technology or allowed them to study their modern weapons. However, if so then North Korea studied these, absorbed the lessons and implemented them on an active tank very quickly. Once again, it is entirely possible, but also a bit difficult to believe. We are seeing the same thing with the Russians in Ukraine right now. A lot of their highly touted 'modern' or 'next generation' technology doesn't seem to work as advertised (although some of this could be massive amounts of human error). For example, the much vaunted T-14 hasn't made a recorded appearance yet in Ukraine. While this may be to avoid losing a T-14 to be analyzed by CIA, I doubt it. Part of Putin's reason for going to war was to show the world that Russia is a modern, first-rate power. In that scenario, you'd want to showcase your most modern capabilities. The US did this in almost every recent conflict, showing off high precision, modern weapons that significantly outclassed their enemies. Given all of this, I find it quite possible that this new North Korean MBT is a paper tiger that's either completely fake, unaffordable or far away from being realistically fielded in combat.
I believe that Nth Korea and Iran swap a lot of tech when it comes to military eqipment and technology . Therefore I do beleive it is The Iranian Zulifiqar 3 tank which like the 2020 has 7 wheels and they have similar appearance. The North Koreans dressed them up a bit and wow they have a properganda tank for thie parades.
wait, the guns are 125mm? they looked more like the 115mm ones from the pictures to me. still, fairly impressive for a country with almost no GDP to be able to design a new tank at all, lol.
Wasn t north korean pilots defector who said that if they flew 3 time a year it was a generous year? If they don t even have ressources to maitain their army. So develloping and producing new tank? Lol no.
I would be incredibly shocked if these turned out to be real and not some mock-ups. There is no way this joke of a country has the resources, capacity, economy, talent or skill to build something like this, not even with the help of China and Russia combined and that is incredibly unlikely. They've also shown some other new vehicles that we haven't seen before, a gun platform that looked like it was inspired by the Stryker MGS, a Russian Iskander copy, Some Chinese Self propelled Howitzer copies and some new MLRS. All of this to be developed in such a short time and be uncovered all at once is simply put, IMPOSSIBLE. Just as it is impossible for a man to fly just by flapping his arms. Pretty much all of the systems seen in that military parade are nothing but mock-ups, combined with the new uniforms that the soldiers were wearing, the parade was nothing more than a show to the world, trying to display everyone how NK is on par with every other superpower in terms of its military when in reality it is just a big joke.
well, the T-14 has some major components that make it significantly more expensive, which the koreans aren't going with in this tank, it's probably real
Thanks for a decent video with info. North Korea may be isolated and sanctioned but they can produce weapons. I dont think the tank is any more then a prototype at this stage. The t55 usead an APS and the DPRK would have had access to drodz. Hell they made their own tor system and the KN06 Sams
@@johnharrison6745 well look at Russia they have air superiority and tanks are just mobile crematoriums. Eastern tank doctrine v western atgms and tech doctrine is going so well for the tanks
It's possible that the main gun can fire ATGMs and that the two tube launcher on the side is for anti aircraft missiles. If the main gun cannot fire ATGMs they likely did away with ATGMs all together on the tanks and kept those missile launchers for low flying planes and helicopters. With the new gun and likely new APFSDS and HEATFS they probably thought ATGMs were redundant. With the new rocket artillery vehicles, light vehicles, and the new tank shown I do believe they are switching to a more modern war fighting doctrine. Since North Korea couldn't keep air superiority against any modern foe having as much anti air capability as possible is the smart way to arm their military.
A lot of assumptions made based on the shapes, but i find it more likely that its a dressed-up T-62M made to look like an Abrams/Armata, much like what they often do with soldiers equipment such as night vision goggles, body armor and small arms.
Anyone who has played Wargame Red Dragon will know what's missing in this analysis of the Chonma-HO tank... Where are the fictional Iglas?!?! Edit: Would actually love it if someone made a video on tanks in the game Wargame Red Dragon. How their stats pair up with their real-world counterparts. The game has a fairly basic stat sheet for units. But this game is where I first learned of North Korean vehicles. All I knew was they tended to be dated. But would love to see if the stats make sense for the vehicles. Such as how the Chonma-HO tank in-game has Igla missiles on it. I am pretty sure this didn't exist but not sure.
You’re actually incorrect. You can see them both in this video or by googling “North Korean tank MANPADS” The practice is likely frustrating to you in wargame because it was designed specifically to fight air-power heavy western countries
Quiet. So does Turkey for example, and they did so. And I believe so does North Korea. What they (NK) dont have the capability for is to produce state of the art electronics equipment.
@@tetraxis3011 South Africa use to build it's own nukes during the apartheid period but had them dismantled when the apartheid government fell unlike Mexico which can't build anything!
Nuclear, not Nuculur. Seriously though, I am very skeptical of everything mounted on this thing. We haven't seen any of the boxes open, just boxes on the side of the turret - no lenses or sensors are visible. the front smoke dischargers poke through the front armour. It looks more to me that this is a mock up fabricated onto an existing or modified turret/hull. North Korea has also demonstrated pictures of prototype "stealth aircraft" which couldn't possibly be true. I lean heavily towards the propaganda theory. Excellent video, either way. You showed you have done your research and I appreciate that.
Just realized that at 13:02 the turret looks like a almost identical armor layout of the m1a2 Abrams and I just wanted to say this even if I am a year late
As an haitian the north korea are really effective with limited resources ,we do have access to global trade and we barely "*surpassed*" them. Respect to them
@@blomgaming6480 we are ,if one of our president dissagre with uncle Sam he will be depose within the week . we cannot develop ourself, we cannot be free .
@@jpierremathieux4080 haha what are you gonna develop by yourselves? How to cut trees faster? because thats pretty much the only thing you can do without america helping you exist with aids, nvm tourism because you probably wanna get rid of that because its us-made law right?
@@blomgaming6480 we where starting but each time we start.,UNCLE SAM *embargo* us, not "sanction " *embargo* .so yes we would have, love you to stfu in our internal politic and stop propping dictator in our country . If the north korea does not want to be like us .l,or libya, or Syria. They rather have some scary thing in there pocket . And stop with your aid nobody have ever seen the light of it .
The fuck you mean respect to them. Not only that they have trade with China and Russia, they are fine! Also they are also just a evil country, the leaders that is. So I don’t know why you would respect it.
It's probably old tech and a new casting they definitely have the capability to design holes and turrets but I don't think they have the tech to implement like ussr or usa so probably just old tech new look
You forgot one hypothesis, Russia shipped them the parts and/or designs.. what did they trade for it tho ? I have no idea but most world leaders these days take nonsensical decisions so yeah
Mehh. It's basically anyone's guess if they can get the electronics working correctly all the time under field conditions. Armor ... basically no one has a clue. The basic premise of a RHA enclosure for whatever "special" armor package is deemed sufficient from an affordability /protective /weight /procurement standpoint is well known. Given the Chinese ties...perhaps something similar to 1 - 2 generations back ? Then again it could be Mashkirovka and just be empty space.
Well even when it not develop weapons it would still got sanction in importing foods and shiet. So dont say like it poor because of it develop weapon. It got sanction since 1950s already.
I get the feeling there may be multiple reasons why they picked this color. 1) They think it looks cool. All of the other big players are running tan cammo so why not dress it up like theirs? 2) It stands out better on camera. 3) They may have a new cammo pattern but do not wish to show it so we will not become familiar with the pattern and spot the tanks easier so they respray some of them in a flat tan for propaganda.
It is probable that they would have issues R&D optrinics, but for Armor insert they could probably. As using various materials in an efficient array doesn y require high end electronics
The fact that the new Russian one and this one look like kids drawing a "Future tank" shows alot I highly doubt either are anymore that a metal shelf mounted on new engines completely void of any internals....
"Far left" is sort of dubious, when it comes to DPRK (neither "democratic", nor "peoples", and not a "republic" either), as it's nickname "the Kingdom of Kims" descibes it quite well.
That 'active protection system' could be smoke launchers. North Korea's army and kit is better than the west gives it credit for (especially on it's budget) and i reckon their new tank would be will be good, i don't think it will be on the level of the Armarta.
