Talk:Pokpung-ho/Archives/2024/March

Is this North Korean propaganda
This is useless technology. I think this is pure North Korean propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.220.136 (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong picture in article
The picture is upgraded Chonma, the driver sits on the left side of the hull while Pokpung-ho has the driver in middle: http://www.militaryparitet.com/editor/assets/new/files2/mmmilitary%20DPRK%202012%20%286%29.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.204.191.229 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Major Edit Planned
Due to the inconstisency and unreliability of publically available data on the M-2002, I will "uncompile" the data on the page and list them according to sources. Just over 1/2 dozen individuals have provided extensive information regarding PokPungHo on bemil.chosun.com and other sites, and I will be arranging them in order soon. I believe that this is more effective than saying "the PPH may have this, but some claim this and others yet claim this." etc., etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.184.238 (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit is finished. Can someone produce a CGI or a schematic drawing of a T-72G with an extended hull equipped with the flat gun of the T-80? Maybe we can use that as a possible reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.184.238 (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, that seems unnecessary now, the Belarusian T-72 will do.

Future of this article
I don't think I'll be editing this article again anytime soon, since it's not everyday we get info on the PPH. =)

However, can someone re-classify this article? It's no longer a stub.

Whew~ The tank comparison is finally finished. Any more ideas, people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.184.238 (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Jokjebi (Mongoose) ATGM
Alright, the Jokjebi is an ATGM that is in development by ADD at the moment, but very little information has been leaked at this point. Even the ROKMC official website specifications listing states that the XK2 will mount 8 Jokjebi ATGMs, so it's rather certain that the missile is at least in development. However, "Jokjebi" is a codename, and obviously, the official designation will probably change, so keep an eye out for any news. There is the possibility of the project being scrapped, as there has been minimal information leaked about the project and it has been rather quiet regarding the missile for quite a while (but then again, this is a low-profile project, it'll be months or years before any detailed info or specification is released). But I can't say that mentioning it would hurt. I think we can handle mentioning it as "in development," right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.184.238 (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No specs released at the moment, we'll have to wait a little longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.184.238 (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

P'okpoong-Ho shells
Just to calrify, as far as we know, North Korea does not develop/manufacture APFSDS shells, but they manufacture their own "second- generation" AP shells. The two are quite different, so please don't confuse them. None of the data I came across regarding the PPH mentioned anything about APFSDS, but if anyone has some info on North Korean APFSDS shells, I'd love to look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.184.238 (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Chonmaho5 003.jpg
The image Image:Chonmaho5 003.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --22:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Original research image


This is a T-80U turret pasted on a T-72. It is based on speculation by a Wikipedia editor, not on any verifiable source. It is also incorrect, because the T-80's turret is significantly different than the T-72's.

It also seems to be a mashup of images found on the web, not original work. Source of turret & hull front, source of hull rear and suspension. The ownership of copyright is doubtful.

I'm removing it from the article. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 17:52 z 

New article about the Pokpung-ho
Joseph Bermudez has published a detailed article, with photos, about the Pokpung-ho in Vol. 1 No. 4 of his KPA Journal (PDF link). He argues that the tank is based on the T-62 rather the T-72. --GagHalfrunt (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article makes much of this Wikipedia entry oboslete, especially all the speculations about the looks and the design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.236.60 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The big rewriting
The article is out of date; at least now we know how does Pokpung-ho looks like. Who will rewrite the article? And does the article needs pictures of Pokpung-ho like in the Russian Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.183.213 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've omitted the speculative information that suggests similarities to the T-72 and the T-90. I've also edited the template info. It's not known what kind of armor the tank has (panels on the turret may as well be composite), neither is there any information on the engine. There isn't much information on the tank anyway. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Versions
There are at least three different versions of this tank. He're s a picture of another version. As far as I know not more than fifty of those were produced by now. Some people mistakenly thought that it was a Chonma-Ho upgrade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.194.119 (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

A New Source
Hey, I don't really know how to edit Wikipedia but I came across a analysis of all three variants of the Pokpung-Ho (in two separate posts) on www.kpablogger.tumblr.com. I was wondering if it could be used for a rewrite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.217.46 (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Crew size and autoloader
It's a bit speculative, but in all observed instances of use the 125 mm gun has the autoloader system. Are we sure the North Koreans can't replicate the mechanical device? - 178.215.99.38 (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Extensive rewrite required
This article requires a lot of work, the name is wrong and it's full of inaccuracies and incited speculation. It's a fairly mammoth task. Feeblezak (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The link you claim dead is working.
RBL2000 (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For you it seems to be ok but this link is not working for me (in France) neither for the web.archive.org : "This page is not available on the web because of server error".--Le Petit Chat (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"In Service: 2020-present"?
This is contradicted by the rest of the article, i'll leave editing it to someone else as I'm something of a noob when it comes to wikipedia.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Bukpungho nk tank.jpg