Cant see how it is much slower than 120mm NATO.
North Korea Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter FORBIN
- Start date
-
- Tags
- north korea
120mm NATO is a unitary i.e. single piece round. If you have a human loader you only have to put one single object into the gun.
Because 125mm Soviet has the ammo separate from the propellant you need to load two objects into the gun.
That is one of the reasons why the Soviets went with the autoloader when they switched to 125mm in the first place.
125mm Soviet:
120mm NATO:
Because 125mm Soviet has the ammo separate from the propellant you need to load two objects into the gun.
That is one of the reasons why the Soviets went with the autoloader when they switched to 125mm in the first place.
125mm Soviet:
120mm NATO:
Right. The tank 2 generations behind. As if Abrams is incorporating tech from base M48 tanks. Songun-ho is already a new chasis. M2020 is yet another new chasis. There will be as much in common with T-62 as Abrams with M48.
There are MBTs with manually loaded 125mm.
Also there have been single piece for 125mm.
They acquired T-72's from Iran that captured it from Iraq, M2020 has road wheels and tracks of T-72.
Since it is manual it will clearly be a single piece 125mm. Nothing stop them moving on from 115mm. They did adopt 155mm howitzer ditching soviet 152mm.
Definitely T-62 was an overstretch by me, perhaps the T-72/T-80 or newer variants of Chonma-ho. But you can't strawman and compare apples to oranges. Comparison between Abrams & M48 to M2020 & T-62 isn't logically acceptable since the environments surrounding both developments are completely different. Of course we can't entirely deduce the development of M2020 based on this. However, through deductive reasoning, it's reasonable to suggest that it incorporates technologies from a wide array of tanks.
Note I said technologies based. Which could mean upgraded / newly developed components BASED on ones found within the T-62.
However I do agree with the general point of your statement. Undoubtedly it contains more advanced technology, and is a leap in the KPA's capabilities.
As far as I know no one else uses single piece 125mm. It would mean they would have to design and manufacture the ammo themselves. It is not impossible I guess, since the North Koreans have made their own artillery calibers like 170mm caliber.
If they kept the ammunition as two parts they could have added some sort of load assist device. Like the one the Soviets added to heavy tanks using 122mm two part ammunition in WW2. US heavy tank designs from WW2 also used two part ammunition. But they had two human loaders to keep the fire rate up. This required a huge turret.
If they kept the ammunition as two parts they could have added some sort of load assist device. Like the one the Soviets added to heavy tanks using 122mm two part ammunition in WW2. US heavy tank designs from WW2 also used two part ammunition. But they had two human loaders to keep the fire rate up. This required a huge turret.
But it really is analogous to M48 vs Abrams. Chonma-216 is the direct T-62 lineage. But engine, suspension, weapon, layout, etc already upgraded to the point of Thesus's ship. It is comparable to Israeli Magach 3 vs M48. Songun-ho is the one that incorporates the T-72 tech. You can say it is the M60 generation. Not much was in common with T-62 at this point. M2020 is another whole new design, comparable to Abrams. Honestly if base Abrams is tech 40 years ago, no one should be surprised NK make an early Abrams equivalent.
Fair enough, well written answer. This shows to me I still need a lot of research on North Korean tanks.
However there are still just so many discrepancies with the comparison, especially with establishing a correlation based on one environment of development, and linking it to another. It's something I can't wrap my head around.
Please do pardon me for my ignorance...
Last edited:
M2020