[Interview file] North Korea's'New RPG'... Independently developed'Difficulty' Korean anti-tank weapon

The weapons that attracted the most attention at the North Korean parade at Kim Il-sung Square on the 14th were the Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) and the improved version of the North Korean version of Iskander KN-23.

Both have raised concerns about the possibility of carrying nuclear bombs.

On the other hand, there are many reviews that it is a weapon of the distant future where the actual deployment is far away.

Even if the SLBM and KN-23 are not enough, the military's remarkable thing is the improved anti-tank weapon RPG-7.

The 108th Mechanized Infantry Division, introduced by Chosun Central TV as'the first mobile strike force of the People's Army,' marched with individual firearms one by one.

It had a butt board similar to a regular rifle.

It is believed that the post-storm was removed and renovated so that you can freely shoot.

It wasn't a very good anti-tank weapon in terms of destructive power and accuracy, but it seemed to be a weapon capable of tormenting our soldiers in close-up street combat.

Our military's anti-tank weapons are 90mm recoilless guns and Panzerfaust-3.

Various disadvantages such as heavy or heavy after-storm, short range but expensive have been exposed for a long time.

So, the independent development of Korean anti-tank weapons began in 2012.

Eight years have passed, and there is a lot of talk about basic operational requirements (ROC).

I am worried that a heavy and strong after-storm will come out.

Korean anti-tank weapon business began in earnest with prior research in 2012.

The following year, it was decided as a company-led R&D project, and a leading defense company in Korea took on the challenge.

I tried exploratory development from 2014 to 2015, but the business was hazy because it did not meet the ROC.

The core of the Korean anti-tank weapon ROC is penetration.

It was not even possible to meet the penetration power ROC, but in 2017 it was reported that the auditor also pointed out that the penetration power should be further increased.

Hundreds of mm penetration can be realized.

However, if you increase the penetration power significantly, the anti-tank weapon is also heavy.

When this happens, the soldiers cannot carry it.

Moreover, it was confirmed that the ROC of the Korean anti-tank weapon does not have a Confined Space standard.

It is very important, with and without after-storms.

If the after-storm is strong, you cannot shoot anti-tank weapons inside the building.

In order to increase the survivability of our soldiers in the battlefield environment on the Korean Peninsula, where the proportion of street fighting is high, we need to be able to shoot inside the building.

Back storm prevention should be a standard feature of new anti-tank weapons, but our ROC was omitted.

Currently, the domestic development of Korean anti-tank weapons is moving toward a strong post-storm while not having high penetration power.

The weight is not too high.

In this way, it's easy to get criticized for developing it.

The army reserve general, who was well versed in anti-tank weapon development, said, "The penetration power ROC is unprecedented in the world."

He advised, "The ROC suitable for anti-tank weapons is not far away. If you look at the lightweight anti-tank weapons favored by the Western military, there is a correct answer," he advised.

It's small and light, but it penetrates well, and nevertheless, if you develop an anti-tank weapon of your dreams without a after-storm, it's no wonder.

But there is no such anti-tank weapon.

If you can't meet all of the weight, penetration, and after-storms, it's better to prioritize them according to your technical and tactical realities and throw away what you boldly throw away.

It is also necessary to consider the status of anti-tank weapons.

It is not a weapon that has to be devoted to development, such as ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines, and fighter jets, and it is not a weapon that damages independent defense without localization.

Nevertheless, countless soldiers and defense scientists have lost eight years to the formidable ROC swamp.

It is a matter of seriously considering whether independent development is good.