It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

N Korea Shows Off New Tank Amid War Games

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
reply to post by crisko
 




Who is supplying them with technology and educating their scientists etc. ?



I will have one guess, IRAN!!




posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by crisko
Here is a link to a site that has the technical specifications as well as picture of the tank.







OK, so who would actually want to be in a Tank nowadays?

A few Apaches would turn them into dust in a few hours, you would be a sitting duck!!

Not for me I'm afraid!



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


It isnt hard to have unmanned aircraft, get you one of those Remote controlled Airplanes strap a video camera on it, and enhance the controller, BOOM you have an umanned Aircraft.

Does hating your own country ever get old? Hate the Government but not your country.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Regensturm
 


You forget. The tank is obsolete for us, not others. The US is a full 40-60 years ahead of many nations in many places, and a full century ahead on air and naval power.

The AA these tanks have is very likely old ww2 style ones that were abandoned for rockets. And if it is rockets, it's likely the cheap Russian versions.

The fact still remains that N Korea does not have the resources to make these things en mass, like most of their army, and relies more and infantry number than anything else, much like Japan in ww2.

Japan in ww2 proved that a nation with only infantry and planes can go a far way. But this is now 2010. Infantry is very easily picked off in large formations, hence why the US keeps low troop numbers and spread out. The tanks are still going to get picked off. In as much the same way the Abrams and t-90 have weaknesses in the form of their massive heat signatures on their rear ends. This is why the US uses its own air force to fight before the tanks role in. No tank is going to survive a modern assault from air. it's as simple as that.

In fact, the reason why the US us having a fire sale for the old m1a2 models and selling the a3 models to its closest allies is for the same reason they did this with the Patton and Shermans years earlier. The US knows their weaknesses and therefore ultimately maintains control.

The N Koreans are using old tanks. That's all we need to know in order to deduce that they are still not as good as the American bombers.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by minkey53
 


China is actually much more likely. North Korea is a chinese pet project, to secure their southern border since ever,



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91


You forget. The tank is obsolete for us, not others.


But the fact remains, despite the tank's supposed obsolete status, it is still used.


Originally posted by Gorman91
The US is a full 40-60 years ahead of many nations in many places, and a full century ahead on air and naval power.


I would say 40-60 years in many places, but not all. I would also dispute that the US is a full century ahead in air and naval power. Where the US is ahead is in size, spending and technology. With China expanding it's blue water fleet and set to overtake the US as the most richest economy in years to come, I would say Air and Naval power is stands is at most twenty years ahead of it's nearest comparables.



Originally posted by Gorman91
The AA these tanks have is very likely old ww2 style ones that were abandoned for rockets. And if it is rockets, it's likely the cheap Russian versions.


Perhaps, but itdepends whether or not North Korea have got hold of Chinese or Russian reverse-engineered modern AA systems for the Tank.


Originally posted by Gorman91
The fact still remains that N Korea does not have the resources to make these things en mass, like most of their army, and relies more and infantry number than anything else, much like Japan in ww2.


So the theory goes. But it's possible that North Korea are perhaps attempting to modernise their armour when we consider North Korea's 'Songun' policy, of concentrating on military spending foremost.

Of course, any such modernisation would depend on what resources North Korea has, and whether it can cut deals, probably in the Chinese, Russian and Eastern European markets.


Originally posted by Gorman91
Japan in ww2 proved that a nation with only infantry and planes can go a far way. But this is now 2010. Infantry is very easily picked off in large formations, hence why the US keeps low troop numbers and spread out. The tanks are still going to get picked off. In as much the same way the Abrams and t-90 have weaknesses in the form of their massive heat signatures on their rear ends. This is why the US uses its own air force to fight before the tanks role in. No tank is going to survive a modern assault from air. it's as simple as that.


But so just as easily, can airplanes and helicopters be picked off when faced against proper anti-air defences.

Tha battle between the ground and the air, between Tank and Anti-Tank has gone on since WW1, and is of course the sword and shield battle, of the weapon's race against the counter-weapon and vice versa. Sure, one side may gain the edge, but it is soon countered.


Originally posted by Gorman91
In fact, the reason why the US us having a fire sale for the old m1a2 models and selling the a3 models to its closest allies is for the same reason they did this with the Patton and Shermans years earlier. The US knows their weaknesses and therefore ultimately maintains control.


Indeed. Very similar to the Soviet exports of weaponry to it's allies.


Originally posted by Gorman91
The N Koreans are using old tanks. That's all we need to know in order to deduce that they are still not as good as the American bombers.



Again, it depends whether the latest North Korean tank has been brought up to T-90 standard with full specs, and indeed whether North Korea has the resources or able to make deals to do so.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Regensturm]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
It's probably a cardboard model of a tank fastened atop a moped.

I'm sure it's been turned into a house or even possibly eaten by now.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet


Does hating your own country ever get old? Hate the Government but not your country.


Sorry I followed the link to the post by oozyism but could find no hate in it, not to the govt or people of what ever country, just a comment on drones, what gives?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Regensturm
 


We used shermans against panzers. In many ways the sherman was obsolete to the panzer. The fact something is obsolete does not mean it will not be used. Even a biplane still has its uses in war.

China and the US are strange bedfellows. The likelihood of a confrontation is there but still not likely to happen because neither nation is retarded enough to want a war. Chinese naval power is still significantly behind and the US is a full century ahead of a large majority of the world's nations, specifically N Korea.

Not to mention the US is, as we speak, upgrading its military. That's why we are not attacking anyone, fyi. Who would attack before an upgrade is complete? The US wants all its new toys in place before a war. So don't expect much military actions until 2016 when the upgrade is complete.

Rest assured, once that upgrade is complete, the US WILL be a full 40 something years ahead of China.

The US is going unmanned in many aspects and we've already EMP proofed a lot of stuff. The US is doing what it did in 1989. upgrading.

N Korea does not have enough gdp nor money to do what you say. Perhapse you missed it, but the US gdp is 15 trillion. The N Korean is 40 billion.

For comparison:

14,590,000,000,000
40,000,000,000

You could take the full production capacity of NK and multiply it by 100 and still only have a small fraction. IE, it would take literally over 100 NKs to compete with the US.

To even call them remotely a threat is an insult.

The total funding we put into our military is still over 10x that of NK total economic output.

IE, if every single NK worker worked to build tanks, and if every single US worker worked to build tanks, the US would have 10 tanks for every single tank NK has. They are not a threat nor a problem.

The battle for aa and tank didn't have laser beams and smart bombs in ww1. NK does not have these things. The US does.

Even if the new tank is 100% as good as a t-90, it is still just as vulnerable to destruction from the air as a sherman.

The fact is NK is preparing for a land war where there is likely to be at most 40,000-60,000 US marines. And it is not likely they will fight much.

The war NK is preparing to fight no longer exists on the battle field and it is for this reason NK is doomed to fail.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by minkey53

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
reply to post by crisko
 




Who is supplying them with technology and educating their scientists etc. ?



I will have one guess, IRAN!!


I'm sure NK can educate sufficient of its populous to re engineer a T90 so as to upgrade their T72s, as to the original question China and Russia are the main source of weapons tech.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
As an aside it costs more than a thousand $$$ to drive an Abrams 1, yes one, mile at the front line in Afghanistan!!



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Got sources for all the many "facts" in this post or is it an opinion piece based on being a patriot, how can you say "40 years ahead" who knows what tech will be like in 40 years or what methods China will use to play catch up hmm espionage, cuts out all the R&D and all the mistakes in the prototypes.

China won't need a navy other than coastal defence in any confrontation with the US it wil be either on their turf or be contiguous, China ain't coming for ya.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

It is said to be on par with the based model K1 operated by South Korea, which in turn is comparable with the M1A1.


Yet the Abrams has been battle tested and has proved itself in tank on tank warfare performing very well. It's an aging design.


Originally posted by Gorman91
Also, considering the m1a1 is a 30 year old model, and the Americans will have their m1a3 out in a few years, I doubt it's efficiency or even competitiveness.


Wow instead of being the usual 40 years behind they are now only 30 years behind.


Uhm, the M1A1 is still the most advanced tank in the world; I think that's what you're trying to say...but the M1A1 is a bad-a tank. I would not want to be anywhere near that thing if I were the enemy. The thing is put together in modules and thus easy to repair, it has a helicopter engine in it, it's incredibly fast...the only down fall is that it costs so much that really the only country that is willing to spend money on it is the U.S....that and it loves fuel; but the engine is retro fit so that it can run on a variety of fuels (at least temporarily.)

[edit on 18-8-2010 by yellowcard]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Thepreye
 


China is expanding. It wants south east Asia, as it historically has.

Sources for all that?

Just go look up current US equipment and scroll down to the replacement sector on Wikipedia. I'm not going to go through the hundreds of weapons the US uses and is replacing the next 6 years. You know the names of the weapons and how to find them. Go to Wikipedia, type in something, say m16, and look up its replacement.

Here, I'll get you started. One of the two or three weapons replacing the m16 is the XM29 OICW

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard

Uhm, the M1A1 is still the most advanced tank in the world; I think that's what you're trying to say...but the M1A1 is a bad-a tank. I would not want to be anywhere near that thing if I were the enemy. The thing is put together in modules and thus easy to repair, it has a helicopter engine in it, it's incredibly fast...the only down fall is that it costs so much that really the only country that is willing to spend money on it is the U.S....that and it loves fuel; but the engine is retro fit so that it can run on a variety of fuels (at least temporarily.)

[edit on 18-8-2010 by yellowcard]


The thing is its very supremacy forces the "enemy" to think outside of the box, it then gets all asymmetric, the "enemy" melts away, and brave arsed mofo's sneak close to your lines to bury a charge made out of artillery propellant that flips your Abrams or buries a relatively small charge covers it with copper or gold and projects a tiny hole through the M1A1's side or rear armour and a white hot plasma of copper or gold inside.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
they got two tanks now watch out! moving on up in the world!!! we better stop them before they acquire three!!! people are so worried about north korea, but in all reality if we went to war with them we could probably bribe their soldiers to go AWOL with a couple packs of ramen noodles and some cold cut turkey sandwiches. a much more logical way to combat NK would be to drop flyers with pictures of people fleeing the boarders of NK and getting well fed once they hit the south. do not underestimate the motivation food would provide to a starving person.



[edit on 18-8-2010 by 2weird2live2rare2die]

[edit on 18-8-2010 by 2weird2live2rare2die]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Thepreye
 


China is expanding. It wants south east Asia, as it historically has.



That situation is covered in the part of my post where I use the word contiguous, Cheers for the info pointers, didn't actually need them though.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Regensturm
 


We used shermans against panzers. In many ways the sherman was obsolete to the panzer. The fact something is obsolete does not mean it will not be used. Even a biplane still has its uses in war.


The Sherman was not obsolete to the panzer, just inferior. But it was not obsolete. Up to the Panzer IV it could engage with the Panzer with inferiority, but relevance on the battlefield. From there, the Sherman was upgunned to try to counter the Panthers and Tigers to varying degrees of success, mostly inferior.


Originally posted by Gorman91
China and the US are strange bedfellows. The likelihood of a confrontation is there but still not likely to happen because neither nation is retarded enough to want a war. Chinese naval power is still significantly behind and the US is a full century ahead of a large majority of the world's nations, specifically N Korea.


We're not really talking about confrontation here though. We are talking about parity in the strength of forces and how many decades seperate them.


Originally posted by Gorman91
Not to mention the US is, as we speak, upgrading its military. That's why we are not attacking anyone, fyi.


Are we excusing Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia from this equation, and the possible war on Iran? I see.


Originally posted by Gorman91
Who would attack before an upgrade is complete? The US wants all its new toys in place before a war. So don't expect much military actions until 2016 when the upgrade is complete.


I disagree. A war is a perfect testing range for upgraded weaponry, and wars of course serve the industrial-military complex well.


Originally posted by Gorman91
Rest assured, once that upgrade is complete, the US WILL be a full 40 something years ahead of China.


It depends in what areas you refer to, air, naval, or militarily. It came to pass that the British Empire was soon overtaken by a fast-growing economy that had access to a bigger manufacturing output, that being the US of course.

US domination militarily will not last forever. Spending is spending, but it only takes a breakthrough and superior manufacturing output to gain the edge. China for example, is a huge base for manufacturing as you will know, and this is how the US powered it's economy, through manufacturing.


Originally posted by Gorman91
The US is going unmanned in many aspects and we've already EMP proofed a lot of stuff. The US is doing what it did in 1989. upgrading.


And so is the rest of the world.


Originally posted by Gorman91
N Korea does not have enough gdp nor money to do what you say. Perhapse you missed it, but the US gdp is 15 trillion. The N Korean is 40 billion.

For comparison:

14,590,000,000,000
40,000,000,000

You could take the full production capacity of NK and multiply it by 100 and still only have a small fraction. IE, it would take literally over 100 NKs to compete with the US.



Economically yes, but militarily, North Korea possesses enough funds to try to modernise it's armour via foreign purchase or by home-grown reverse engineering.


Originally posted by Gorman91
To even call them remotely a threat is an insult.


I have not called them remotely a threat. I have stated that North Korea's economy is driven by it's military first spending. As that get's priority spending it is not hard to imagine North Korea would strive to modernise it to within financial constraints and other factors.


Originally posted by Gorman91
The total funding we put into our military is still over 10x that of NK total economic output.

IE, if every single NK worker worked to build tanks, and if every single US worker worked to build tanks, the US would have 10 tanks for every single tank NK has. They are not a threat nor a problem.


Again, I am not stating they are a threat or a problem, but that does not stop an attempt by North Korea to modernise. No, it may not be up to US standard in numbers or indeed tech, but it still would be a modernisation.


Originally posted by Gorman91

The battle for aa and tank didn't have laser beams and smart bombs in ww1. NK does not have these things. The US does.


The WW1 version of laser beams and smart bombs were visual alignment in order to try to drop bombs, and plane-to-artillery shelling, where a Plane would inform a Gun position of an enemy location, and give co-ordinates for an accurate 'smart' bombing. That was considered quite advanced, but everybody caught up in the end, and Germany overtook the allies in the first half of WW2 through feat or arms and advanced tactics.

The supposedly unsurpassable nations and their weapons of today are not different from the same hypothesis of nations and their weapons a hundred, and indeed thousands of years ago. Which were considered advanced of all others, and unsurpassable.

But the sword was surpassed by the gun. The dreadnaught by the submarime. nation surpassed by another nation.


Originally posted by Gorman91
Even if the new tank is 100% as good as a t-90, it is still just as vulnerable to destruction from the air as a sherman.


Vulnerable like any other Tank.


Originally posted by Gorman91
The fact is NK is preparing for a land war where there is likely to be at most 40,000-60,000 US marines. And it is not likely they will fight much.

The war NK is preparing to fight no longer exists on the battle field and it is for this reason NK is doomed to fail.


Let's hope we never get to find out what is the reality of a war there.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Regensturm]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
Kim Jong Il is an highly intelligent person who knows what he is knowing 24/7.


Interesting. Are you saying that you don't know what you are knowing?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Not at all. I have been studying North Korea for a while now. Why has Kim Jong Il been in power this long? Think about it!



Watch from 2:00



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join