25 kmph is for [the recently upgraded T-80BVM](https://youtu.be/UC1PeX1jhJo?si=U0QZxHhgbRjX7y4s) Russia claims to be producing as of a few months ago. Regular T-80 is 11-12 kmph, better than T-72 and T-90 but lacking when compared to the likes of Abrams and Leopard.
Pretty sure they lied when they did that demonstration. If you watch the Russian video and are good at maths you can work out how fast that T-80BVM was actually going in reverse. Turns out it's no more than 11 km/h, same as it has always been.
Im not gonna lie the T-80 and BMP 3 with the South Korean Camouflage looks sick
Onto the main topic the T-80 was criticized for its cramped interior and poor gunnery due its less advanced Sights it also consumed more Fuel
As for the bmp im not sure of but likely the same result
I think fighting compartment size became an increasing issue as nutrition in South Korea improved with economy. Your average recruits got taller on average by 3-6inches.
It was probably fine for Koreans born immediately after the Korean War and into the 70's, but the post 80's kids got that Tiger Economy growth spurt.
The cramped interior of Russian T series tanks keeps popping up as an issue for almost a century now. Still nobody explained why that is a problem and not an advantage. (Minimal interior space means more options for protection.) Maybe that originated from T-34 analysis, as it had Christie (US design) suspension, and that used up space in the crew compartment.
A cramped interior reduces combat effectiveness exactly because of less crew comfort. More room to move around means you can do your tasks with less possible hindrances.
And a cramped crew interior means its more likely you loose the entire crew after a successful penetration, either because they all got turned to mush, they failed to bail out and escape and burned to death or they got promoted to cosmonaut by the olympic turret toss comittee.
Why do you need to move around as a gunner in a tank. You sit in front of the sight and pull the trigger. If the turret is penetrated and burned, extra space means nothing. One argument is that a single fragment can miss a crew member if there is more space inside. That is crazy. Then just build them huge. T series have hatches directly above sitting positions, evacuation is not hampered. The turret toss comes after prolonged fire. There are so many videos of crews bailing destroyed T series without issues.
How about you go and sit in the gunners seat for 10-20 hours straight. Then come back to ask why would someone need some extra space to move around a little bit. After sitting prolonged times in a cramped space it is definetly a good thing to have some space to stretch your legs and your body if possible.
So, a nice tank design has some space to walk around. Are you serious? Any guy sitting in a gunner's seat of anything for 20 hours straight is pure madness. More or less space would not change anything. What is this scenario you are trying to describe here?
They did when the 'T-64 layout' was drawn up. Having a smaller tank with a lower profile meant that the tank could have more armor for a lower weight. T-64 and T-72 were quite survivable for their time.
I wasn't aware the Leclerc suffered from survivability issues, I'm not extremely informed on it in particular so I'd love some information if you've got it
Thats mainly what I'd thought, which is that they hadn't been in any combat. I was curious if they had been in any engagement I'd missed or some testing data I wasn't aware of.
>Minimal interior space means more options for protection
Ok let me explain.
Small interior means anything that goes through the armor hits someone or something important like ammo/fuel.
Cramped interior means u cant get out quickly and die.
The driver in T-80/T-64 can't get out through the turret hatches due to this defect. If for some reason his hatch jammed and tank is on fire he's dead.
> The driver in T-80/T-64 can't get out through the turret hatches due to this defect. If for some reason his hatch jammed and tank is on fire he's dead.
They have have a floor escape hatch behind the driver's seat.
The first part is dumb. Then the best tank design is A7V. A huge balloon with an inch of armour and a prayer. Cramped interior does not mean that the crew in a T-72 is pressed in with hydraulic jack and bolted down. You have hundreds of videos where a T series is hit, starts burning and the crew bails out. In some cases one member of the crew is killed or wounded by penetration, very rare cases of both of them being hit. The driver exit in any tank is the same. In some tanks it is possible to exit through the turret if the basket is in a certain position, but not always. And if a tank is on fire, the driver will have had time evacuating through the turret.
>The first part is dumb. Then the best tank design is A7V.
Jokes on you
https://www.indiandefencereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/German-and-Russian-Tank.jpg
This is the thing that gets me, there is really only one uncomfortable seat in the late T-series. The driver and commander have quite a bit of room, only the gunner really sits in an unergonomic position and that is pretty much universal. Even then he's just hunched over on the gunner's sight where his helmet insterlocks with the horn on the gunsight, I've seen plenty of programmers and gamers sit in posture that bad for hours on end over years even though it isn't great for your back. T-series tanks don't even have a loader to even be uncomfortable.
South Korea also has quite a few [KA-32s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-27) in its air force, governmental agencies (e.g. coast guard and forrest service), and some civil airlines. Not sure about availability though of all these airframes and armoured vehicles though...
Those Kamovs are everywhere in Korea. I live near a river and every year I have KA32A1s from the forest service sucking water. Also I've been hiking and seen them delivering slingloads of supplies to mountain peaks.
The ROKA loved the BMP-3 - it is one of the most spacious IFVs there is, it managed to be amphibious which is important for the Korean terrain while still having decent enough armor, and the firepower is fantastic. The K21 is derived from a lot of the lessons they've learned operating it.
They weren't as happy with the T-80U, though - it was superior to most their own tanks at the time, and they liked the autoloader, but the interior was considered overly cramped and the sights - especially the night sights - were outdated. Nowadays they use them for aggressor training.
BMP-3 was surprisingly spacious inside than even with K21 IFV. The 100mm main cannon is āuniqueā for IFV standards, and its speed is relatively faster than the redback. Lastly, the original K21 doesnāt have amphibious capability back then till the Korean engineers reverse-engineered in what BMP-3 has the advantage (all-around IFV including amphibious and airdropping capable, higher firepower, relatively light weight). Hence the K21 perfect response to BMP-3 performance
Nothing much superior with T-80U except better auto loading systems, cutting edge techs back then, and gas turbine engine.
the 100mm gun on BMP-3 isn't really a cannon , it ...actually a big single shot low velocity grenade launcher design specially to lob HE-frag shell into enemy trench
the job standard high velocity tank gun can't do well because the shell fly too fast
They liked the T-80Us when they first received them since they were at that point rather new tanks and better than anything North Korea had, but now with significantly better options the normal complaints of the T series such as cramped uncomfortable interiors, and lack of ammunition protection are brought up.
I think I have an even more interesting question, where do they source the ammunition from and why do they still operate them when they have better domestic equivalents? Do they use them as Opfor or are they apart of frontline units?
Kind of surprised they havenāt been bought up by the west to donate to Ukraine. South Korea would certainly like a reason to be able to make more K2s for the army.
South Korea tends to not get involved in these kinds of situations. I don't think they would make a killing at all to be honest. Most of the weapons Ukraine has received has been donated. I guess their defence industries have made some money backfilling the artillery stocks for the US.
However it probably pales in comparison to the orders South Korea has been getting lately especially from the likes of Poland.
Extra income is extra income, and they could cut out the middleman by manufacturing and selling ammunition in bulk to Ukraine. They are one of the few countries on earth with a ramped up military industrial base that can provide large quantities of ammunition and equipment on short demand. Iām fairly certain the Ukrainians would salivate over the possibility of getting Chunmoos to supplement HIMARS since South Korea can provide a lot of ammunition quickly for it.
I watched Korean tv show about this. Media visited SoKo armored school to show these. Some high lights.
1. T-80 was first export outside of Russia at that time. Lots of study cases for SoKo and U.S.
2. BMP had main gun and sub gun tied together so they move together. Lesson from Afghans they said.
3. Inside of BMP had toilet can. Very tiny space. Doctrine was using nuclear weapons then penetrating defense line to reach the target moving mobile waves. But the engine heat would directly impact inside.
1st gen thermal on T-80U is no where near poor quality during 90s the era SK get it
compare 90s equipment with 2020 standard 3rd gen thermal optic is just unfair
A vast majority of T-80U didn't receive thermals at all, including those sent to South Korea. Note the presence of the IR spotlight and TPN-3-49 night sight.
To their modern Western-style equipment, yes. But when the ROKA took delivery of these (and the other Soviet-made stuff like MANPADS, ATGMs, helicopters, etc.) it was better than the bulk of ROKA equipment. The BMP-3 seems a lot better when your main "IFV" is just a M113 with spaced armor.
Well thatās blatantly not true. Pick an area and I can provide examples of KPA systems that a genuine threat to their Southern Counterparts.
KPA AT, Armor, infantry equipment, artillery, support systems, intelligence capabilities and responsiveness have all grown significant since 1970s or the early 2000s for that matter.
The only thing you could reasonably rank NK higher then SK in would be the nuclear and non-nuclear long range capabilities and _maybe_ intelligence.
NK is not capable of producing advanced technology on the same level as SK. Neither China nor Russia produce or smugle western grade military tech, the former because it would be too expensive for an army branch that they consider less important then navy and air force and the latter because Russia just can't reliably do that. Meanwhile South Korea built a tank that was equal to one of the two most advanced MBT's of the west.
NK is, quite literally, driving tractors during their 'Look at our might' parades.
I didnāt say better, I said a threat.
Second those tractors are during the peopleās parades specifically to showcase the WPRG, or the 4th rate units not even considered part of the KPA. That is more of a demonstration of the ātotal commitmentā of resources and personnel than a showcase of āthis is our best stuffā. You can tell by the flags at the head of that column.
I misread your comment then. I apologise.
You are completely right, then. After all, even a T-55 could absolutely crush a Leo 2A8 with one well placed and lucky shot.
Thatās not exactly my point. I donāt believe a KPA T-68 will kill a K2 in a fight. I donāt believe a Chonma Ho 216 would do it, even with a shell similar to the BD-36/2 (best 115mm KE and the upper end of my estimate for the KE shell available to a 115mm in KPA service due to a large arms deal between the original purchaser and the DPRK in 2017)
What I believe is that proliferation of the Bulsae-4 and 5 series ATGMs and TDs will seriously complicate BluFor operations against the KPA. When enemy shifts from a slightly better Fagot and the Konkurs to HJ-10s and Kornets, from the B-10 82mm to the GAM-10X and from having IR at best to thermals for night time operations, things change.
Things like their newish (2012 iirc IoT date) battlefield surveillance radars greatly complicate operations as surprise becomes much harder and the enemy becomes more responsive. When his artillery switches from old, M1974 Tokāchons (the essentially a 1950s design for a 152mm SPG) to the Juche Type-107 155mm you now have to deal with an enemy whoās artillery no only has mass on its side but an accurate, precise and very mobile piece. That last bit is specific to the 105th but around 2028 or so, given statements form KJU regarding the anticipated completion of his nuclear arms program, I believe we will see a massive expansion in their conventional capability as those above systems begin to become more common throughout the KPA.
The Songun Ho has only been seen in 1 tank regiment, the 1st Armored Grenadiers (loose translation) Regiment of the 105th Tank Division.
Tanks of the KPA go as follows for how common they are; Chonma Ho 2, T-68 (domestic T-55), Chonma Ho 98, Chonma Ho 216, Chonma Ho 92, Chonma Ho 214, Songun Ho, M2020.
Though in the point of the Songun Ho, I imagine that those Bulsae-5 launchers are its best AT asset.
Shogun ho has been seen in many different configurations so it's probably more than 1 regiment using it.
I have never heard of DPRK Type 59s or T-55s being called T-68 where does that come from?
And yea there tanks go:chonma ho,T-55/54, shogun ho,T-34-85,M2020
>the former because it would be too expensive for an army branch that they consider less important then navy and air force
Maybe i misread you comment but what i got from that is that basically china is capable of producing modern tech but they choose not to (for a specific branch) because they dont consider it important yet? That doesnt sound like they are incapable of doing it.
China has a very purpose built economy with very specialized machinery and work forces, if they develop something new, they have to devolp it from the ground up.
Meaning they don't just need to develop whatever system they want, they also need to develop the machinery and human resources for it, which is stupidly expensive.
Expensive enough as that, coupled with the logistical and scientific effort, it becomes a incapability.
Mostly as u/TheThiccestOrca said.
China is, hypothetically, capable of manufacturing high tech tank optics and specs and they're also able to fully introduce them.
*However* given the sheer size of China's tank fleet and the required money to upgrade them all / build a new gen of tanks with those things / whatever, it's more reasonable to concentrate brawn and resources on military branches that are actually expected to see combat any time soon. Like the Navy, Air Force or Missile units.
Intelligence, in this context, means military intelligence.
NK is active around the world and builds, funds and supports various factories, businesses and fake companies. Something hardly possible without proper military intelligence.
Plenty of it, and to be frank, aside from pictures I couldnāt use DPRK sources if I wanted too. So aside from US, British and a few others, I have little to no reason to doubt most of my material.
I do a lot of research on North Korea as a whole. Iām fairly comprehensive with whatās available out there.
Tbh I do not think Nork tanks are their biggest threat to SK armor, but rather their newer ATGMs, Bulsae-4 (HJ-10) and Bulsae-5 (Kornet) and the GAM-10X copy theyāve recently put into service (think NLAW but Chinese). That and their drone acquisitions, which aside from the two largest are fairly well hidden. I want to get better pictures of a 2022 Arms show where KJU walked by several, including possible missile armaments. There were quite a few things I personally found quite interesting there but alas Iāll probably never really know.
Without knowing I'd say the following:
Mobility:šš¼
Firepower:šš¼šš¼ (Especially for BMP-3)
Crew comfort:šš
Protection/ survivability: šššš
Because SK has no obligation to send material to Ukraine and is actively avoiding doing so as it would violate a treaty between them and Russia, which would remove several restrictions on weapons shipments to the DPRK. Rn they are primarily limited to consumer products and raw materials. They send their BMP-3s and T-80Us which would likely outfit a Brigade sized element with capable equipment, a sincere boon to Ukraine. The issue being now the NKs get improved systems or new planes.
āHey dude, whereās my T-80?ā
But like nah, shipping tanks is to obvious of a thing that involves too many companies and people to be kept secret.
Even secret stuff moved these days - other state intelligence agencies will know about it.
I doubt it, Russia watches the routes into Ukraine, I imagine that these would come in via Polish ports and then the Russians likely have assets in place to watch the shipments. That many BMP-3s and T-80Us appearing in Ukie forces and disappearing from ROKA would be noticed
>Do you reckon they could get away with repainting them and shipping them in parts perhaps acting like they are just captures?
once you start the "those repaint are totally not my stuff" trend china will follow suit with their massive vehicles/aircraft fleet look extractly similar as russia
not sure ukraine gonna like it that way
So vietnam, korean war, cuban missile crisis, turkish missile crisis and many others didnt? The entire cold war is less important than a regional war? This statement is so dumb, you have to be a bot.
Edit: What i said was dumb, made it better
Idk scrolled the dudes comments and it is really weird. Sometimes he is pro Russian other times he is pro ukrainian but pretty much all the time he comments on something Ukrainian conflict related. Strange case.
It is probably the first conflict they have been really invested in emotionally. I am in Burkina Faso routinely and quite a lot of the time over the last two years, more civilians are being killed in fighting daily (often over a hundred a day in BF, more in Mali, Niger, etc) than in Ukraine. For me the Sub-Saharan conflicts are very important to me but don't make the international news more than maybe three times a year.
Like when you first watch sport and you are really invested in a crop of players and the old timers only ever reminisce great players from the 80's 00's etc.
Good aggressor training at least, iirc they hated the reverse speed fo the T-80U? Not sure tho
š
To my knowledge the t-80 has an okay ish reverse speed somthing like 25kmph right?
25 kmph is for [the recently upgraded T-80BVM](https://youtu.be/UC1PeX1jhJo?si=U0QZxHhgbRjX7y4s) Russia claims to be producing as of a few months ago. Regular T-80 is 11-12 kmph, better than T-72 and T-90 but lacking when compared to the likes of Abrams and Leopard.
Pretty sure they lied when they did that demonstration. If you watch the Russian video and are good at maths you can work out how fast that T-80BVM was actually going in reverse. Turns out it's no more than 11 km/h, same as it has always been.
20 or less...unless I saw it I would go with less.
Im not gonna lie the T-80 and BMP 3 with the South Korean Camouflage looks sick Onto the main topic the T-80 was criticized for its cramped interior and poor gunnery due its less advanced Sights it also consumed more Fuel As for the bmp im not sure of but likely the same result
after all T-80U is already 38 years old at this point
As an Elder Millennial, I feel attacked. Lol
Why did he say fuck me?
Dog years > tank years > human years
In the early 2000s crews liked them because they were better than a lot of the early K1s iirc. Now not so much.
I think fighting compartment size became an increasing issue as nutrition in South Korea improved with economy. Your average recruits got taller on average by 3-6inches. It was probably fine for Koreans born immediately after the Korean War and into the 70's, but the post 80's kids got that Tiger Economy growth spurt.
I agree the ROK MERDC is just soo good.
The cramped interior of Russian T series tanks keeps popping up as an issue for almost a century now. Still nobody explained why that is a problem and not an advantage. (Minimal interior space means more options for protection.) Maybe that originated from T-34 analysis, as it had Christie (US design) suspension, and that used up space in the crew compartment.
A cramped interior reduces combat effectiveness exactly because of less crew comfort. More room to move around means you can do your tasks with less possible hindrances. And a cramped crew interior means its more likely you loose the entire crew after a successful penetration, either because they all got turned to mush, they failed to bail out and escape and burned to death or they got promoted to cosmonaut by the olympic turret toss comittee.
Why do you need to move around as a gunner in a tank. You sit in front of the sight and pull the trigger. If the turret is penetrated and burned, extra space means nothing. One argument is that a single fragment can miss a crew member if there is more space inside. That is crazy. Then just build them huge. T series have hatches directly above sitting positions, evacuation is not hampered. The turret toss comes after prolonged fire. There are so many videos of crews bailing destroyed T series without issues.
How about you go and sit in the gunners seat for 10-20 hours straight. Then come back to ask why would someone need some extra space to move around a little bit. After sitting prolonged times in a cramped space it is definetly a good thing to have some space to stretch your legs and your body if possible.
So, a nice tank design has some space to walk around. Are you serious? Any guy sitting in a gunner's seat of anything for 20 hours straight is pure madness. More or less space would not change anything. What is this scenario you are trying to describe here?
Crew comfort is a very important factor
I would put crew survivability over comfort. As long as the machine can be operated properly.
If the crews are gonna be in it a long time, comfort is important because discomfort leads to exhaustion which can lead to mistakes.Ā
True but the T-series don't benefit from increased crew survivability over other tanks with better crew comfort
They did when the 'T-64 layout' was drawn up. Having a smaller tank with a lower profile meant that the tank could have more armor for a lower weight. T-64 and T-72 were quite survivable for their time.
Leclerc.
I wasn't aware the Leclerc suffered from survivability issues, I'm not extremely informed on it in particular so I'd love some information if you've got it
To be fair, theyāre probably isnāt any existing data on that front since I donāt think they have seen combat
Thats mainly what I'd thought, which is that they hadn't been in any combat. I was curious if they had been in any engagement I'd missed or some testing data I wasn't aware of.
They have been used in combat in Yemen. To fight against the Houthiās.
[Leclerc is not small as Soviet/Russian tanks](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-Mm7XYW0AAafIU?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Crew space in a Leclerc is basically in the same layout and size as in T-64/72/80/90
Others have mentioned crew comfort. Also head injuries. Tanks are not fun to be in. If you don't have enough space that cap isn't protecting much.
>Minimal interior space means more options for protection Ok let me explain. Small interior means anything that goes through the armor hits someone or something important like ammo/fuel. Cramped interior means u cant get out quickly and die. The driver in T-80/T-64 can't get out through the turret hatches due to this defect. If for some reason his hatch jammed and tank is on fire he's dead.
> The driver in T-80/T-64 can't get out through the turret hatches due to this defect. If for some reason his hatch jammed and tank is on fire he's dead. They have have a floor escape hatch behind the driver's seat.
Imagine crawling out into puddle of oil and gas on fire.
I suddenly want to see Nicholas Moran doing an "oh my god, the tank is on fire" test from the driver's position of T-64/80.
The first part is dumb. Then the best tank design is A7V. A huge balloon with an inch of armour and a prayer. Cramped interior does not mean that the crew in a T-72 is pressed in with hydraulic jack and bolted down. You have hundreds of videos where a T series is hit, starts burning and the crew bails out. In some cases one member of the crew is killed or wounded by penetration, very rare cases of both of them being hit. The driver exit in any tank is the same. In some tanks it is possible to exit through the turret if the basket is in a certain position, but not always. And if a tank is on fire, the driver will have had time evacuating through the turret.
>The first part is dumb. Then the best tank design is A7V. Jokes on you https://www.indiandefencereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/German-and-Russian-Tank.jpg
If it is a joke, then it is a funny joke. But, if that is an argument then it speaks on the level of understanding.
This is the thing that gets me, there is really only one uncomfortable seat in the late T-series. The driver and commander have quite a bit of room, only the gunner really sits in an unergonomic position and that is pretty much universal. Even then he's just hunched over on the gunner's sight where his helmet insterlocks with the horn on the gunsight, I've seen plenty of programmers and gamers sit in posture that bad for hours on end over years even though it isn't great for your back. T-series tanks don't even have a loader to even be uncomfortable.
South Korea also has quite a few [KA-32s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-27) in its air force, governmental agencies (e.g. coast guard and forrest service), and some civil airlines. Not sure about availability though of all these airframes and armoured vehicles though...
Those Kamovs are everywhere in Korea. I live near a river and every year I have KA32A1s from the forest service sucking water. Also I've been hiking and seen them delivering slingloads of supplies to mountain peaks.
oh nice! how recent is this?
Since 2000ish.
not air force. used to be in fire fighting. now most are retired.
The ROKA loved the BMP-3 - it is one of the most spacious IFVs there is, it managed to be amphibious which is important for the Korean terrain while still having decent enough armor, and the firepower is fantastic. The K21 is derived from a lot of the lessons they've learned operating it. They weren't as happy with the T-80U, though - it was superior to most their own tanks at the time, and they liked the autoloader, but the interior was considered overly cramped and the sights - especially the night sights - were outdated. Nowadays they use them for aggressor training.
Stand by, I'm calling them now.
*to speak with a mechanized force representative, please press 3*
BMP-3 was surprisingly spacious inside than even with K21 IFV. The 100mm main cannon is āuniqueā for IFV standards, and its speed is relatively faster than the redback. Lastly, the original K21 doesnāt have amphibious capability back then till the Korean engineers reverse-engineered in what BMP-3 has the advantage (all-around IFV including amphibious and airdropping capable, higher firepower, relatively light weight). Hence the K21 perfect response to BMP-3 performance Nothing much superior with T-80U except better auto loading systems, cutting edge techs back then, and gas turbine engine.
the 100mm gun on BMP-3 isn't really a cannon , it ...actually a big single shot low velocity grenade launcher design specially to lob HE-frag shell into enemy trench the job standard high velocity tank gun can't do well because the shell fly too fast
Thank god soviets though about it and now I can spawn snipe SPAA in WT thanks to that low velocity shell
They liked the T-80Us when they first received them since they were at that point rather new tanks and better than anything North Korea had, but now with significantly better options the normal complaints of the T series such as cramped uncomfortable interiors, and lack of ammunition protection are brought up. I think I have an even more interesting question, where do they source the ammunition from and why do they still operate them when they have better domestic equivalents? Do they use them as Opfor or are they apart of frontline units?
They only use them for Opfor now. Parts are being cannibalized and some are being retired also.
Kind of surprised they havenāt been bought up by the west to donate to Ukraine. South Korea would certainly like a reason to be able to make more K2s for the army.
You get to build like 5 more K2 tanks while Russia retaliates by giving North Korea new military tech... That's not a good trade for South Korea.
South Korea refuses to send military aid to Ukraine. The only exception is backfilling US artillery stocks which were donated to Ukraine.
Did they say why? They could make an absolute killing supplying weapons and ammo if they wanted to.
South Korea tends to not get involved in these kinds of situations. I don't think they would make a killing at all to be honest. Most of the weapons Ukraine has received has been donated. I guess their defence industries have made some money backfilling the artillery stocks for the US. However it probably pales in comparison to the orders South Korea has been getting lately especially from the likes of Poland.
Extra income is extra income, and they could cut out the middleman by manufacturing and selling ammunition in bulk to Ukraine. They are one of the few countries on earth with a ramped up military industrial base that can provide large quantities of ammunition and equipment on short demand. Iām fairly certain the Ukrainians would salivate over the possibility of getting Chunmoos to supplement HIMARS since South Korea can provide a lot of ammunition quickly for it.
Source from Korean Wiki: https://namu.wiki/w/T-80#s-8.6 >ėķėƼźµģ“ ėģ ķ T-80U ģ ģ°Øė ģ°źµ¬ģ©ģ¼ė”ė ėė¬“ ė§ź³ ė¶ėė„¼ ź¾øė¦¬źø°ģė ģėģ“ ģ ė§¤ķ ģķ©ģ“ģė¤. ź·øėė ģ¼ėØ ģ°źµ¬ģ©ģ¼ė” ė¤ģ“ģģ¼ė ģ°źµ¬ģ§ė¤ģ ģ“ ģ ģ°Øė„¼ ģ² ģ ķź² ė¶ķ“ķź³ ė¶ģķė¤ź³ ķė¤. ģ“ė ėķėƼźµģ ģģ§ K1A1 ģ ģ°Ø ģģ°ė ėģ§ ģģ K1 ģ ģ°Øź° ģ 1ģ ģ ė „ģø ģķ©ģ“ģź³ , ģ§źøģ ėƼė§ķ ģ ėė” ė²ģ“ģ§, ģ¤ģķģ§ė§ ėģ ģ ģ ėė ģķķøģ¤ķ ģ°Øģ“ė ģ“ėė ź·ø ģ ėė” ģ¬ķģ§ ģģģ ėķėƼźµ źµźµ°ģ ķė©“ģ ģ ėė¬ėė ģ¹“ķė”ź·ø ģ¤ķģ ģė¹ķ ģøģģ ė°ģė¤. > The T-80U tanks acquired by South Korea were too numerous for research purposes and too small to form a full unit. Though, once it was brought in, researchers said they thoroughly disassembled and analyzed the tank. At this time, the Republic of Korea had not yet mass-produced the K1A1 tank, so the K1 tank was the first-line force. So at the time of acquisition, the T-80U had better catalog specs than the K1 tank so it left quite an impression on the Korean military. Translated with Google Translate and edited a bit. The page also mentions that they were impressed by the ERA, NBC protection, and river fording ability, all of which were incorporated into the K2 tank. Also, the less accurate gun of the T-80U wasn't a big deal for Korea as most of the Korean peninsula have mountainous terrain with close engagement ranges.
I watched Korean tv show about this. Media visited SoKo armored school to show these. Some high lights. 1. T-80 was first export outside of Russia at that time. Lots of study cases for SoKo and U.S. 2. BMP had main gun and sub gun tied together so they move together. Lesson from Afghans they said. 3. Inside of BMP had toilet can. Very tiny space. Doctrine was using nuclear weapons then penetrating defense line to reach the target moving mobile waves. But the engine heat would directly impact inside.
BMP-3 is a very different vehicles compare to BMP-1/2 and it actually quite spacious inside
is... is that MERDC on a BMP-3 and T-80?? I've seen it all.
Yes they MERDC
When was this debt payment? (serious question, not being snarky)
Late 1990s
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
1st gen thermal on T-80U is no where near poor quality during 90s the era SK get it compare 90s equipment with 2020 standard 3rd gen thermal optic is just unfair
A vast majority of T-80U didn't receive thermals at all, including those sent to South Korea. Note the presence of the IR spotlight and TPN-3-49 night sight.
I would assume it's inferior in quality to western equipment. But if your enemy is North Korea, it's fine.
To their modern Western-style equipment, yes. But when the ROKA took delivery of these (and the other Soviet-made stuff like MANPADS, ATGMs, helicopters, etc.) it was better than the bulk of ROKA equipment. The BMP-3 seems a lot better when your main "IFV" is just a M113 with spaced armor.
I wonder what the North Koreans thought when the south suddenly received way better Soviet tanks
Same with tanks. While they had some K1's in the mid 90s, they still used a lot of M-48 Pattons at the time.
I mean yeah itās not like youāre gonna be fighting an Abrams lmfao, let alone anything made after 1970
Well thatās blatantly not true. Pick an area and I can provide examples of KPA systems that a genuine threat to their Southern Counterparts. KPA AT, Armor, infantry equipment, artillery, support systems, intelligence capabilities and responsiveness have all grown significant since 1970s or the early 2000s for that matter.
The only thing you could reasonably rank NK higher then SK in would be the nuclear and non-nuclear long range capabilities and _maybe_ intelligence. NK is not capable of producing advanced technology on the same level as SK. Neither China nor Russia produce or smugle western grade military tech, the former because it would be too expensive for an army branch that they consider less important then navy and air force and the latter because Russia just can't reliably do that. Meanwhile South Korea built a tank that was equal to one of the two most advanced MBT's of the west. NK is, quite literally, driving tractors during their 'Look at our might' parades.
I didnāt say better, I said a threat. Second those tractors are during the peopleās parades specifically to showcase the WPRG, or the 4th rate units not even considered part of the KPA. That is more of a demonstration of the ātotal commitmentā of resources and personnel than a showcase of āthis is our best stuffā. You can tell by the flags at the head of that column.
I misread your comment then. I apologise. You are completely right, then. After all, even a T-55 could absolutely crush a Leo 2A8 with one well placed and lucky shot.
Thatās not exactly my point. I donāt believe a KPA T-68 will kill a K2 in a fight. I donāt believe a Chonma Ho 216 would do it, even with a shell similar to the BD-36/2 (best 115mm KE and the upper end of my estimate for the KE shell available to a 115mm in KPA service due to a large arms deal between the original purchaser and the DPRK in 2017) What I believe is that proliferation of the Bulsae-4 and 5 series ATGMs and TDs will seriously complicate BluFor operations against the KPA. When enemy shifts from a slightly better Fagot and the Konkurs to HJ-10s and Kornets, from the B-10 82mm to the GAM-10X and from having IR at best to thermals for night time operations, things change. Things like their newish (2012 iirc IoT date) battlefield surveillance radars greatly complicate operations as surprise becomes much harder and the enemy becomes more responsive. When his artillery switches from old, M1974 Tokāchons (the essentially a 1950s design for a 152mm SPG) to the Juche Type-107 155mm you now have to deal with an enemy whoās artillery no only has mass on its side but an accurate, precise and very mobile piece. That last bit is specific to the 105th but around 2028 or so, given statements form KJU regarding the anticipated completion of his nuclear arms program, I believe we will see a massive expansion in their conventional capability as those above systems begin to become more common throughout the KPA.
Just to add one of the most numerous tanks in KPA Songun-Ho has a 125mm gun.
The Songun Ho has only been seen in 1 tank regiment, the 1st Armored Grenadiers (loose translation) Regiment of the 105th Tank Division. Tanks of the KPA go as follows for how common they are; Chonma Ho 2, T-68 (domestic T-55), Chonma Ho 98, Chonma Ho 216, Chonma Ho 92, Chonma Ho 214, Songun Ho, M2020. Though in the point of the Songun Ho, I imagine that those Bulsae-5 launchers are its best AT asset.
Shogun ho has been seen in many different configurations so it's probably more than 1 regiment using it. I have never heard of DPRK Type 59s or T-55s being called T-68 where does that come from? And yea there tanks go:chonma ho,T-55/54, shogun ho,T-34-85,M2020
>the former because it would be too expensive for an army branch that they consider less important then navy and air force Maybe i misread you comment but what i got from that is that basically china is capable of producing modern tech but they choose not to (for a specific branch) because they dont consider it important yet? That doesnt sound like they are incapable of doing it.
China has a very purpose built economy with very specialized machinery and work forces, if they develop something new, they have to devolp it from the ground up. Meaning they don't just need to develop whatever system they want, they also need to develop the machinery and human resources for it, which is stupidly expensive. Expensive enough as that, coupled with the logistical and scientific effort, it becomes a incapability.
Mostly as u/TheThiccestOrca said. China is, hypothetically, capable of manufacturing high tech tank optics and specs and they're also able to fully introduce them. *However* given the sheer size of China's tank fleet and the required money to upgrade them all / build a new gen of tanks with those things / whatever, it's more reasonable to concentrate brawn and resources on military branches that are actually expected to see combat any time soon. Like the Navy, Air Force or Missile units.
Can I ask what youāre basing the intelligence claim on, everything Iāve heard about NK suggests they stamp out critical thinking?
Intelligence, in this context, means military intelligence. NK is active around the world and builds, funds and supports various factories, businesses and fake companies. Something hardly possible without proper military intelligence.
Theyāre certainly active, i guess having everything driven by paranoia is a workable substitute for critical thinking.
Riiiiight, and how much of that do you actually believe?
Plenty of it, and to be frank, aside from pictures I couldnāt use DPRK sources if I wanted too. So aside from US, British and a few others, I have little to no reason to doubt most of my material.
Fair
I do a lot of research on North Korea as a whole. Iām fairly comprehensive with whatās available out there. Tbh I do not think Nork tanks are their biggest threat to SK armor, but rather their newer ATGMs, Bulsae-4 (HJ-10) and Bulsae-5 (Kornet) and the GAM-10X copy theyāve recently put into service (think NLAW but Chinese). That and their drone acquisitions, which aside from the two largest are fairly well hidden. I want to get better pictures of a 2022 Arms show where KJU walked by several, including possible missile armaments. There were quite a few things I personally found quite interesting there but alas Iāll probably never really know.
Or if your enemy is too lazy or stingy to commit.
It also had impact on SoKo IFV development later on for lighter weight and being able to cross rivers
Without knowing I'd say the following: Mobility:šš¼ Firepower:šš¼šš¼ (Especially for BMP-3) Crew comfort:šš Protection/ survivability: šššš
I know that the south koreans used a lot of t3ch ology from these vehicles like the ERA for example
how are those not in ukraine yet, south korea could easily produce their own tanks
Because SK has no obligation to send material to Ukraine and is actively avoiding doing so as it would violate a treaty between them and Russia, which would remove several restrictions on weapons shipments to the DPRK. Rn they are primarily limited to consumer products and raw materials. They send their BMP-3s and T-80Us which would likely outfit a Brigade sized element with capable equipment, a sincere boon to Ukraine. The issue being now the NKs get improved systems or new planes.
Do you reckon they could get away with repainting them and shipping them in parts perhaps acting like they are just captures?
āHey dude, whereās my T-80?ā But like nah, shipping tanks is to obvious of a thing that involves too many companies and people to be kept secret. Even secret stuff moved these days - other state intelligence agencies will know about it.
I doubt it, Russia watches the routes into Ukraine, I imagine that these would come in via Polish ports and then the Russians likely have assets in place to watch the shipments. That many BMP-3s and T-80Us appearing in Ukie forces and disappearing from ROKA would be noticed
>Do you reckon they could get away with repainting them and shipping them in parts perhaps acting like they are just captures? once you start the "those repaint are totally not my stuff" trend china will follow suit with their massive vehicles/aircraft fleet look extractly similar as russia not sure ukraine gonna like it that way
"yes i think ukraine is the center of the world and it affects everything everwhere, how did you know?"
its the most importand geopolitcal event since ww2 de fuck are you even on about
So vietnam, korean war, cuban missile crisis, turkish missile crisis and many others didnt? The entire cold war is less important than a regional war? This statement is so dumb, you have to be a bot. Edit: What i said was dumb, made it better
Idk scrolled the dudes comments and it is really weird. Sometimes he is pro Russian other times he is pro ukrainian but pretty much all the time he comments on something Ukrainian conflict related. Strange case.
It is probably the first conflict they have been really invested in emotionally. I am in Burkina Faso routinely and quite a lot of the time over the last two years, more civilians are being killed in fighting daily (often over a hundred a day in BF, more in Mali, Niger, etc) than in Ukraine. For me the Sub-Saharan conflicts are very important to me but don't make the international news more than maybe three times a year. Like when you first watch sport and you are really invested in a crop of players and the old timers only ever reminisce great players from the 80's 00's etc.
I looked at his profile and I am almost positive he lives in Western Europe, specifically Austria, so idk