... all those NK girly men, parading about.

About the tank: it has nothing to do with the T-14 because it has a manned turret, this is clear.
On the other hand, my first impression was the resemblance with M1 Abrams, obvously armed with 125 mm gun. Then I saw the voids around the turret.
So, the turret looks angular and relatively small, with a spaced armour around that has openings for smoke mortars and few other things.
The hull has 7 road wheels for each side, so it is not a Songun with new turret, but something newer and more radical.
The gun sight is on the left side of the turret, so the gunner has to be on that side and the man on the right is the tank commander. This is the same configuration of T-72, T-80 and ZTZ 96 and 99, indicating a two-crewed turret with autoloader.
The missiles on a turret's side are an exclusive, but one could ask if the same weapons could more advantageosly installed on a separate light vehicle without overloading the tank commander.
I can't see machine guns on the tank, I wonder why.
There are two closed boxes on the front sides of the turret, they could hide (or only suggest) a IR jamming device as on T-90.
The hull has the exhaust port on the left side, suggesting commonalities with Soviet and Chinese tanks.
My impression is that the vehicle could have size and performances comparable to early ZTZ-99.

A Tamiya or Trumpeter T-62 and some evergreen sheet and you would have an accurate representation of the latest most up to date NK armor tech.

Who knows, man? It's all speculations at this point. All I am saying is that this supposedly "next generation" NK tank (if they are real) has similar looking features with Armata (ZTZ-99 and Abrams). Some Internet trolls are speculating that Iranians gave NK some tank technology (based on info that Iranians shared some missile and submarine technology with NK before). Like others are saying, these just may be mock-ups.

I think what I find a bit disappointing from the majority of the posts on this topic, is the readiness with which this vehicle and its potential as a weapon are being laughed down - purely because its North Korean. I have first hand experience of how flawed some of our own NATO tanks are with regards to design.

I'm sure it will continue to be funny to some, right up until the point that several hundred of them roll over the border.

There's no reason why this couldn't be a very capable platform. This tin-pot Army you decry has successfully kept S Korea and its Allies twitching for decades, lets hope that we never have to find out if this really is a worthy opponent or not.

Quoted Text

---

I think what I find a bit disappointing from the majority of the posts on this topic, is the readiness with which this vehicle and its potential as a weapon are being laughed down - purely because its North Korean. I have first hand experience of how flawed some of our own NATO tanks are with regards to design.

I'm sure it will continue to be funny to some, right up until the point that several hundred of them roll over the border.

There's no reason why this couldn't be a very capable platform. This tin-pot Army you decry has successfully kept S Korea and its Allies twitching for decades, lets hope that we never have to find out if this really is a worthy opponent or not.

---

I think a 22 year military career, with numerous types of clearances and hundreds of classified mission briefings might "qualify" me to throw out a bit of off-color humor at the NK military.

I think what I find a bit disappointing from the majority of the posts on this topic, is the readiness with which this vehicle and its potential as a weapon are being laughed down - purely because its North Korean. I have first hand experience of how flawed some of our own NATO tanks are with regards to design.

I'm sure it will continue to be funny to some, right up until the point that several hundred of them roll over the border.

There's no reason why this couldn't be a very capable platform. This tin-pot Army you decry has successfully kept S Korea and its Allies twitching for decades, lets hope that we never have to find out if this really is a worthy opponent or not.

Quoted Text

---

I think what I find a bit disappointing from the majority of the posts on this topic, is the readiness with which this vehicle and its potential as a weapon are being laughed down - purely because its North Korean. I have first hand experience of how flawed some of our own NATO tanks are with regards to design.

I'm sure it will continue to be funny to some, right up until the point that several hundred of them roll over the border.

There's no reason why this couldn't be a very capable platform. This tin-pot Army you decry has successfully kept S Korea and its Allies twitching for decades, lets hope that we never have to find out if this really is a worthy opponent or not.

---

To your point on potential- is there anything to the features "optimised for mountain warfare"? Could anyone else see how an Abrams long range kill potential is dulled by terrain during an ambush in the hills? Afgahnistan was not a great place for tank battles either, right? Only hope we are not fighting the last war. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.

I think we all know that unless you're on the North German Plain, or the desert (gas turbine engines?) - MBTs are pretty much useless. I'm not sure of Korea's topography - so they might count here too.

Increasingly, Governments are coming to the realization that MBTs are an expensive luxury for all but the most open of battlefields.

I think that is very short sided. MBT have been used effectively in all types of combat. Yes, they can be highly effective is long range open terrain warfare vs other MBT and armor. They can also be used effectively in an urban situation supporting grunts. Even if the main gun effectiveness is degraded by terrain they can be an effective rolling pillbox in support for and with the infantry. No, it’s not then end all be all tool, no equipment is but it’s an important tool in the toolbox to have. I think the Marines we very wrong to retire them all. Would have been best to retain some for other missions then toe to toe with China.

Quoted Text

---

I think that is very short sided. MBT have been used effectively in all types of combat. Yes, they can be highly effective is long range open terrain warfare vs other MBT and armor. They can also be used effectively in an urban situation supporting grunts. Even if the main gun effectiveness is degraded by terrain they can be an effective rolling pillbox in support for and with the infantry. No, it’s not then end all be all tool, no equipment is but it’s an important tool in the toolbox to have. I think the Marines we very wrong to retire them all. Would have been best to retain some for other missions then toe to toe with China.

---

We've seen this kind of ideas in the past.
Remember when the stars of the air forces were the interceptors because some people were convinced that future wars will be nuke bombers against AA defences?
Remember when a lot of people announced the death of the MBT's after the 1973 Middle East wars, due to the huge success of ATGM's?
Remember when the trend was to convert everything into light fast-reaction units because they were the solution to the "new" threats? And that seemed to be a genius idea until Gulf War I, when Desert Shield had to be implemented until enough heavy armor reached the zone...
We are now living yet another "era" when -once again- the death of MBT's is declared, but time will tell if that actually happens any time in the near future...
So far, and since the First Great War they are still running and the spinal column of any serious army.