New improved North Korean Main Battle tanks

[The SC]

You mean the round object to the left of the main gun. It seems like a radar. If it is a RADAR it has nothing to do with air i thing that radar is there to make precision hit on an enemy tank. This is quite an innovation of fitting a small anti helo system on a tank. The twin rockets are quite helpful to make a kill after the first rocket falling for the flares the second rocket can take the kill.

Well yes we are talking about the same object, to the left from the picture and to the right if you are in the Tank.. hahaha! The radar on the second tank to the left seems to be a bit inclined, that made me think it can be used to detect air targets too in a short range in accordance with the anti air missiles.. maybe like you have said also, it is not exclusive for either system.. and keep in mind that other mobile air defence systems will be there too, but this configuration seems to be made for some special forces armoured divisions, brigades or battalions..

 

[BHarwana]

Well yes we are talking about the same object, to the left from the picture and to the right if you are in the Tank.. hahaha! The radar on the second tank to the left seems to be a bit inclined, that made me think it can be used to detect air targets too in a short range in accordance with the anti air missiles.. maybe like you have said also, it is not exclusive for either system.. and keep in mind that other mobile air defence systems will be there too, but this configuration seems to be made for some special forces armoured divisions, brigades or battalions..

If it was for Air defense it would have rotational axis as well. Secondly if it is not a spot light the tilting can also be there for mountains or hills

 

[Davos]

What are your thoughts about this new concept of each Tank carrying its own short range air defence and ATGMs?

G'day Mate

In my opinion, this is not a necessarily development and I think it will seriously impede the function of the North Korean tank, in the end, it will end up being silly, or useless.

The first problem I see is that the launcher and the accessories have made the tank profile higher, tank uses natural and man made defence to hind their track, making it higher means it stood more contrast to the terrain behind you, make your profile more visible. Which directly goes against both hull down and turret down principal.

The second problem I see is the launcher will hinder the turret stability when it launches missile, launching missile will generate back blast which mean the turret will dip to the side when the missile is fired. That means when the missile is being launch, you cannot use the main gun. Also, unless North Korea process technology the west does not have that camera box on top of the missile launcher would be a simple IR sensor which is quite common on MANPAD. Military FLIR camera have two lenses. which you will see two separate reflector on it. Commercial grade FLIR as in the one being used in night vision camera have a single lens

The third and the most problematic problem I can see is both missile launcher is located outside the main turret, which mean either the missile is not reloadable or crew have to risk getting shot in battle to reload it, and if this is not reloadable like the TOW in Bradley, then the dual tube missile would be a moot point. You may as well put 2 SA-7 and 2 RPG-7 on top or behind your tank. Why mount it up top then?

Davos

 

[Penguin]

A heli dock someday...

UAV on pad over the engine bay ;-)

 

[GuardianRED]

This Idea of SAMs on the Tank reminds me of the Russian mammoth Tank from Command And Conquer

 

[Penguin]

Has any one noticed a small camera above the anti-Air missile. Now if North Korea is under sanctions and they have those FLIR multi-spectrum sights that means either North is advancing very quickly or some one is helping them with thermal Imagery and either that is France or Kazakhstan.

Could also simply be a - cheaper - B/W or color TV tracking cam (the missile itself is IR homing).

Just to the right of the main gun..
I know that some old soviet tanks had light projectors, but then it did not make sense anymore, and with those air defence short range missiles, a radar makes much more sense on top of the optical components..

How can you tell that's a radar? It doesn't appear any different from the IR search light found on previous versions.

The Pokpung-ho remains a North Korean version of a Soviet supplied T-72. The chassis is basically a heavily modified version of T-62, with greater length and an additional pair of road wheels. To the extent the P'okp'ung-ho's FCS is based on the T-72's, it may implement the PNK-3 or PNK-4 day and night sighting system with the 1K13-49 periscope combined passive/active sight guidance system (some reports claim that it may be based on the Chieftain FCS, which Iran may have exchanged). However the night sighting system is most likely to be the same with obsolete T-62. The P'okp'ung-ho also has an infrared sensor (TPN-3-49 or TPN-4), a laser rangefinder and a search light, all of which allow the P'okp'ung-ho to operate during the night. This version above would be the Pokpung-ho V.

T-72 used the IR searchlight

T-90 and upgraded T-72B3 no longer do > better night vision.
https://southfront.org/new-t-72-variant-to-enter-service/

 

[Penguin]

Since there are no devices that search/detect targets, it could be the tank receives cues from an external source (e.g. radar) via datalink. It may also be that if a helicopter launch (of ATGW) is - somehow - detected, the response would be to (automatically?) cue the MANPADs in that direction in the hope that its IRH head locks and a missile can be fired that may force the helicopter to break off its attack. Otherwise, having dedicated AA units (Spaag, Spsam) would be more effective imho.

 

[The SC]

Since there are no devices that search/detect targets, it could be the tank receives cues from an external source (e.g. radar) via datalink. It may also be that if a helicopter launch (of ATGW) is - somehow - detected, the response would be to (automatically?) cue the MANPADs in that direction in the hope that its IRH head locks and a missile can be fired that may force the helicopter to break off its attack. Otherwise, having dedicated AA units (Spaag, Spsam) would be more effective imho.

Intriguing isn't it?

 

[Penguin]

Intriguing isn't it?

Not really. It's trying to do too much in one vehicle, with a crew of just 3. This way I doubt it can perform any role well.

Recall that e.g. Leo II was intended to have a big 20mm cannon atop the turret against helicopters and secondary ground targets. Note the sighting systems

There is also the pair of Slovak T-72 upgrades

T-72M1 Moderna (2x 20mm)

T-72M2 Moderna (1x30mm)

Ukrainian T-72 with twin 23mm

T-10M heavy tank with Malyutka ATGWs (AT-3 Sagger)

AMX-13 with SS-11 ATGW

Centurion with SS-11

M47/48 Patton with Swingfire

Type 98 with... Manpads?

Another North Korean tank (T-62) Chongma 1

Tanks with MANPADs are rarest.

 

[The SC]

Not really. It's trying to do too much in one vehicle, with a crew of just 3. This way I doubt it can perform any role well.

Recall that e.g. Leo II was intended to have a big 20mm cannon atop the turret against helicopters and secondary ground targets. Note the sighting systems

There is also the pair of Slovak T-72 upgrades

T-72M1 Moderna (2x 20mm)

T-72M2 Moderna (1x30mm)

Ukrainian T-72 with twin 23mm

T-10M heavy tank with Malyutka ATGWs (AT-3 Sagger)

AMX-13 with SS-11 ATGW

Centurion with SS-11

M47/48 Patton with Swingfire

Type 98 with... Manpads?

Another North Korean tank (T-62) Chongma 1

Tanks with MANPADs are rarest.

Well researched, well done..

 

[Penguin]

The MANPADS is HT-16PGJ, a homegrown North Korean development from the Igla that saw service in the Syria. In the middle a twin 30mm grenade launcher (AGS-30, likely). ATGW may be Bulsae-2 or -3, an system similar to the Russian AT-4 Spigot

 

[C130]

What are your thoughts about this new concept of each Tank carrying its own short range air defence and ATGMs?

I think it's kinda stupid and wouldn't be all that effective.

let's start with the ATGM. It looks like the same setup from a M2 Bradley. problems I see is you gotta stick your body out to reload, and where are you going to store the extra missiles??


tank fired ATGM are more practical

as for MANPADS on the tank I guess it's better than nothing, but a Apache and A-10C have ATGM that can kill these tanks before coming into the effective range of IGLA.

all and all it's a frankentank that wouldn't be as effective as a dedicated ATGM vehicle or a dedicated air defense vehicle

what the Norks wish they have

 

[Penguin]

North Korea doesn't yet have cannon launched ATGW I gather