There are lots of opinions in Korean pr community too. And personally, I would like to see dprk in pr.Tyso3 wrote:Firstly, North Korea has one of the largest militaries in the world, so who the hell are you calling 'Militia' lol.
Secondly, Even if they were of a lower calibre grade, that doesnt mean much in PR (this is why we love this game).
On some maps, the BLUFOR has Main Battle tanks, Jets, CAS, APC's and yet still loses to a bunch of guys with ak's and rpg-7's.
I would like to see dprk in pr(personally). But there are no hands for making dprk faction. If theres another guy can make dprk faction, that will be good I thinkHitman.2.5 wrote:Why not add NK forces too or instead? it would be funny fighting a keystone cops faction.
Just large, that's allTyso3 wrote:Firstly, North Korea has one of the largest militaries in the world, so who the hell are you calling 'Militia' lol.
Secondly, Even if they were of a lower calibre grade, that doesnt mean much in PR (this is why we love this game).
On some maps, the BLUFOR has Main Battle tanks, Jets, CAS, APC's and yet still loses to a bunch of guys with ak's and rpg-7's.
Huehuehue! I sense a lot of "SOUTH KOREA STRONK!!1!!" in you.KR_Halo wrote:Just large, that's all
PLA is best army in Asia, you know.Death! wrote:Huehuehue! I sense a lot of "SOUTH KOREA STRONK!!1!!" in you.
Anyway, nobody will notice that Un's boys got no north korean accent on the game...
Its 3rd generation unless you believe that K1-88 is 2nd generation tank too, even in 2002 Chosun Ilbo when this tank was known under name M2002 reported that performance are comparable to T-90.KR_Halo wrote:DPRK's 2nd generation MBT
(x) doubtChernobog95 wrote:performance are comparable to T-90.
I see now that by default notifications are off.camo wrote:(x) doubt
Not that it matters but SH.M.M isn't a tanker afaik, though he does do a fair bit of research (and twice as much time having arguments on various forums). But regardless the armour make up and quality isn't really worth arguing about, any source on it will be sketchy at best and guesswork at worst.Chernobog95 wrote:I see now that by default notifications are off.
Here's analysis by German tanker of M2002/Pokpung-ho/Chonma-216's armor.
Source
The thickness of turret front cheeks is 600mm and that is not counting 200-300mm of applique armor that are on turret cheeks which is overall thickness is 800 to 900mm.
An FCS with manual inputs vs an FCS that does all that automatically plus leads moving targets with thermal imagers doesn't really sound equal or better.Chernobog95 wrote:North Korean late 1990's FCS in joint development with Syria is regards of Fire Control System superior/more modern than one used in original M1 Abrams that was being used up to M1A1HA variant. In comparison to Volna FCS that was used in T-62M, vastly superior.
Considering how well informed he seems to be I guessed he was a tanker.camo wrote:Not that it matters but SH.M.M isn't a tanker afaik, though he does do a fair bit of research (and twice as much time having arguments on various forums). But regardless the armour make up and quality isn't really worth arguing about, any source on it will be sketchy at best and guesswork at worst.
Yes, if we ignore that both have option to manual inputs and both do automatically what other's doesn't.An FCS with manual inputs vs an FCS that does all that automatically plus leads moving targets with thermal imagers doesn't really sound equal or better.
I would't be surprised if these features you mention are from M1A1D and its derivatives like Australian M1A1 AIM series, though that seems to be Hunter-Killer which not even latest M1 Abrams variants have unless I am confusing it with something else.leads moving targets with thermal imagers
This is so "manual", also calculator screen versus digital screen.The computer updates the output on the periscope. The periscope has also been modified for this purpose. The whole process is automatic and requires no human input other than the optional wind measurements ,with the ability to input in case any sensor was damaged.
I'm sure the M2002 is great given the very restrictive conditions the North Koreans place themselves under but i'm struggling to see anything it might do better than a T-90.
M1 Abrams FCS from 1980 up to M1A1HA which was mid/late 1990's, not hard to beat that.camo wrote:Fair point, I'd assumed the Abrams would automatically account for wind and humidity on the fly but am now led to believe it's mainly for bore sighting.
Depends on which variant of T-90 as original T-90 is just rebrand of T-72B2 or B3 as T-72's that Iraq had destroyed the reputation of tank due to export models being subpar and some included "monkey" models that were stripped of many features that make up 3rd generation tank. Lets not forget shit-tier APFSDS that Soviets exported which were training rounds that had no chance of penetrating M1A1's front even at point blank.As for T-90 for whatever reason i thought you'd said it was better, but seeing as you said comparable I'm still probably gonna disagree.
