Jump to content
DerelictStudios Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Blackbird

K-1

Recommended Posts

Guest Blackbird

I think we should start now to bring informations of the NK armory to the forums.

dprk_exercise.jpg

 

Here's the K-1 mbt

k1mbt_1.jpg

k1-1.jpg

 

If you ask me, it looks very identical to the american M2A1 Abram Tank x)

 

 

-> Tai started to make a skin of that tank <-

Edited by Blackbird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Herrrrm.... maybe someone could come up with a NK tank design, as this one is so similar to the Abrams as you said? And I suppose a lot of NK will either have to be Chinese or old old Russian equipment. But Iraq already uses newer Russian stuff... :\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blackbird

Here is the second must used tank of NK

 

The T-62 is a further step in the line of development begun with the T-54/55 series, entering production in 1961 and remaining in production until 1975. It became the standard main battle tank in Soviet tank and motorized rifle units, gradually replacing the T-54 and T-55.

Beginning in the late 1970s, North Korea began to produce a modified version of the 115mm gunned T-62 tank. Based on general trends and photography of armed forces parades, it is clear that North Korea has made considerable modifications to the basic Soviet and Chinese designs in its own production.

 

T-62 Light tank

t-62-DDST8501281_JPG.jpg

T-62-2.jpg

DPRK_tank1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blackbird

Nk doesn't use much T-80's

They are using mostly T-88 (full name T-88 K1 mbt).

North Korea is also using a modified version of the T-90 since 2002 but i don't want to have NK have an T-90 and Iraq has a bader T-90 that looks practically the same....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't use K1s at all. Their South Korean tanks designed because they can survuve the larger amounts of NK older tanks, which consists mostly of T-55s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just FYI, the T-90 is a updated T-72

And the T-80 is a T-64.

 

Most nations dont like it because of its gas instead of diesel fuel.

It has really short range becasue it uses a turbine engine but its really faster than the T-90 and more agile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blackbird

They are using modified K1 tanks.

They are using practically any tanks they want from other countries.

They got modified china and russia tanks...

 

They had in 1996 over 2500 T-54/55/59s

They even have outdated T-34's LOL

 

If you search in NK homepages and not in american ones you find much more informations just use a translator x)

 

They're main battle tank in 2005 will be a modified T-90

 

But i don't know how it will look... but i think it will look very identical to the normal T-90 and we got already T-90's for Iraq so we will use their strongest by SK made K-1. Using T-54/55 is also dumb their outdated.

In 1980 modified T-62 came into service and they still been used as the second main battle tank.

 

 

Please excuse my english... For the people that don't know im 15 and live in Switzerland and i got only 3 years english lessons (2 a week).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If NK will have to use South Korean equpiment (because old Soviet equipment would make them suck and newer stuff would overlap with Iraq) and South Korea would give them their weapons when pigs fly, why is NK being added? :huh: And how would NK tie in with Iraq, as they're very far away from each other? Two US campaigns, or One Iraqi and a NK one? I beleive distance and the differences between theatres were two of the reasons Smurf decided to nix Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blackbird

The K-1 wasn't been selled to NK but the K-9 was selled for some millions to the NK.

North Korea seen that they set to much into Nuclear weapon production and still using T-34 tanks cause they have not enough other tanks. And even their newer tanks are not really up to date. They had not enough money to make their Atom plans and airforce (that's the place they giving most money at the moment) and developing/research for Tanks so they buyed K-9 building plans for a big sum of money. But it came cheaper for them to do it that way. And south korea has big money problems. They can't build much armory so it was also good for them to get more money to build more of their with help of americans weaponsystems.

They also didn't think that it would hold NK back to get new tanks if they don't sell them the K-9 (not a tank, it's a SP artillerie) building plan and also for some other artillerie systems and tanks.

The K-1 building plans were captured by the SOF in the beginning the producing of the K-1.

South Korea didn't remark it for a long time.

 

If you get your infos only from 1 place you won't have all infos you need or can believe in it.

I don't really believe in that of the K-1 cause on a South Korea site i saw they argue the K-1 thing. And i also didn't find any K-1 tanks with NK marks on it so it could really be a bluff....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why are you guys using or planning on using a tank because one site says it exists/ is used by NK?

 

South Korea has big money problems since... when? :blink:

 

I was looking through anything to do with North Korea.... the European Union and/or Syria would be better additions, not to mention they're closer to Iraq etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blackbird

We want to have North Korea in the mod cause it is one of the Axis of Evil (NK,Iraq,Iran), that said bush...

Anyway we want a asian side so we took NK cause it is the best to use as an enemy for US.

 

And about the K-1 we won't put that in.

South Korea hasn't money problems for the country itself, but it has not enough money to armor itself enough good to stay on a good defendable level.

 

I don't know what plans Pcteen has for after V3.0 releases. Maybe AAOW2 or V.4.0 lol

If there will be more of AAOW im shure pcteen will put a new army into it like russia,germany.....

The story of AAOW comes from Pcteen so ask him about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isnt it multifuel with a diesel varient?

Im not sure but I dont think you can put diesel into a turbine engine can you?

 

But Im sure one nation or annother put a diesel engine into that thing :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russian T-80 is actually a heavier tank that was not allowed for export. THe T-90, since it is really an updated T-72 is aimed at the export market. As Russia's next stuff, the BLack Eagle may be to the T-80 what the T-90 is to the T-72. As for Iraq having the T-90, it will be different from any NK T-90 cosmetically especially. WHat's planned for now is a T-80 for NK. We are thinking of possibly making T-80 style tank that is modified by NK to look very different and function to support the SPecial Forces. So this would be a unique design for NK. Usually countries just take different vehicles and swap their parts to create new things. SO NK could have a T-80 turret or Black Eagle TUrret mounted on a T-90 chassis or some other combination and call it the T-87 ir Type-2004 or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T-80UM2? "Black Eagle" : Features a new turret with highly sloped front and a bustle-mounted autoloader on a standard T-80U hull. Also incoporates a redesigned ammunition storage scheme to reduce vulnerability to ammunition fires. It is unclear whether this is simply a technology testbed demonstrator vehicle, possibly intended mainly for export, or whether it may enter Russian service in stead of the new Uralvagonzavod design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look guys... this is a problem that seems to come up all the time. People who think they know how this stuff works take snippets from old public websites and call it the truth. Then you have the self proclaimed "military buffs" who read things and argue over unimportant details. Truth is unless you got access to Jane's and other professional research resources, you probably will not up to date stuff. Either way, most kid military buffs do not know how to interpret what they read. Just because one tank has this engine or that many rivets or this long a range for night vision, it is just paper statistics that lack substance. What matters is practicality, functionality, and a balance between realism and fun. Therefore, even if we included a new Russian super tank for NK, it would not matter because it is a new tank in name only when it probably would have different functions and uses compared to other tanks. Just becaue something is new does not mean it is better, so even if NK had new tanks, they would light tanks used for supporting infantry rather than outright engage heavy tanks like Abrams or Akbar Battlemasters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're (sorta) right there, but please realise that not everyone here at DS is a "kid military buff". Some of us (*cough*) do have access to Janes, books and other sources, and do actually know what we are talking about.

"Futuristic" projects are always hard to get reliable info on though, as until they are actually serving in the armed forces, anything could happen.

 

That said, I really don't think it matters what tank Iraq gets TBH. You could give them all Leopard 2s and they wouldn't be more effective. Thus I feel it is better to keep the force more realistic.

You see, the Iraqis tended to use the tanks they had incorrectly, and by failing to use the more sophisticated aspects of their unit, they effectively reduced the range and accuracy of their weapon to WW2 standards. They also had a tendancy to dig in many of their tanks, and treat them more like support artillery, thus losing any mobility.

 

North Korea is (reputedly) better organised, drilled in Sino-Soviet combat doctrines, has actually faced its main adversary (the USA) before and survived with the lessons they learnt. NK may have outdated equipment like Iraq, but at least they know what they are supposed to do with it, and understand how to get the most from their vehicles.

 

This is of course just brushing the surface, and there are many other factors to take into consideration. I'm simply trying to point out that "leveling" the sides with modern Russian equipment wouldn't necessarily be the best idea.

 

I realise that AAoW isn't super-realistic, but was under the impression that it was more realistic than Generals is? Even if its set in 2012, it would be better IMO if the sides and units were balanced in some way that allows the involved nations to use likely equipment, rather than artificially boosting the weaker sides with advanced units.

 

Consider this: Ingame, the US Abrams takes twice as long to build and costs twice as much as an Iraqi T-55. About three or four T-55s are needed to knock out an Abrams. Thus, with some careful micro, the US still has an armour advantage in tanks, but the Iraqis have a fair chance with their T-55s. This is both fair, and more realistic than giving the Iraqis T-90s.

 

If this still isn't to your liking, you could allow some small advances in technology that keep the identity of the forces, and also reflect the passing of eight years. For example, allowing Iraq to have the T-72 instead, or having the old T-55s fire a modified AT-11 Sniper missile after an upgrade at the WF.

 

There are other ways to balance of course, but that was just a straightforward example. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have your read and digested the Iraqi Faction Manual? If so, it will explain why they have what they have.

- Iraq didn't use its equipment to the best of its ability is not the correct explaination. They were expecting a ground war like what they had just fought against Iran and developed tactics for that style. They flew most of their air force to other countries including Iran, (a non-Arab country), and they were bombed to heck from the air leaving little behind. What survived was merely trying not to get killed from the air like being in bunkers or being hull-down positioned. But the state of things in the game allows for a different approach.

- NK was modeled on SIno-Soviet doctrines. But since the 80's they have been modifying their tactics to fit their terrain and circumstances.

- As for Iraq, their T-90's are supposedly upgraded T-72s. Infact, in the original Iraqi manual, it is a T-72 that is upgraded to a T-90. After all, T-90 is a T-72 under the right conditions.

- But still, the scenario is this: light T-90 are like Scorpions in-game. THey are weak, nut they can eb upgraded through the nose, plus they have tricks up their sleeve like the Sniper missile.

- The Akbar Assad blends the timeline with Generals to bridge the gap in the story. There are many bridges, such as the hero unit.

- Most importantly, your scenario does not take into account the AAOW Iraqi combat doctrine. Each faction has a theme. Iraq has a theme, and having light T-90 tanks, with medium Akbars is fine since they may be technologically more advanced in reality but they are still weak none the less. Leveling the playing field doesn't mean tank to tank. Iraq has to compensate in other ways.

- I am trying to shed the yolk of older Cold-War imagry from the scene. Iraq's MiG-21 drone is a good example of putting the "past their glory-days" planes to death as a mercy killing. It's symbolic, out with the old, in with the new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the Iranians and the Iraqis both misused much of their more advanced weapons systems in the recent wars they have had. You can read accounts of the Iran-Iraq war (the First Gulf War), and see the comments and observations there for yourself.

 

I appreciate you may have the sides sorted out, and was only giving you my opinion. Sorry if I insulted your decisions in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of story and background information in the Iraqi manual is to explain why Iraq is euipped with new weapons and expertly trained. The idea was to do a more revitalized Iraq, sorta like the pheonix rising from the ashes. Although there are less ashes to rise from considering there was never any war in 2003. This Iraq is new. If you want to make an anology to historical achievments of similar magnitute, (which violatesmy strongest stances), then compare it to Germany throwing away the versailleis Treaty and building a stop-gap juggernaut by 1939, and then becoming an established juggernaut in 1941-2. But something I shold add to the manual was that they had ties to other countries up until 2003 and after that they were free to catch up on business as usuall. But, everyone thinks we are doing the Iraq of 2003 for some reason. Playing as rusted dead horse against a high-tech foe doesn't seem to be very fair or fun, so we provide an alternative to the slew of "absolute realism mods" out there and in development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×