entirely different thing, 33 T-80Us were delivered to South Korea from 1995 to 1997, as a part of payment for the debt incurred during the Soviet era. Two T-80UKs were acquired from Russia in 2005. Unlike the other downgraded export version, South Korea received the batch built for then Soviet’s domestic use.
South korea actualy used them and it would be part of an actual united korea tree, since a south korea sub tree for japan is unlikely, even if it would be a sub tree it still would be valid since korea officaly used the tank actively and japan doesnt realy have any tank additions left
Edit: this is not off topic, it is a discussion behind the reasoning which would allow the addition of the centauro and why it should be denied, stop the false flagging
Pretty much same case with T-80U being in Sweden TT rn IMO, as well as Mi-28A. This post I mentioned pretty much neglates someones point that people are against such additions to the game.
T-80U for S. Korea would also be imbalanced because you cant give it 10.7 and below that it would be even more imbalanced.
Just as Russia trialed Centauro tanks, now we Sweden T-80U is in game, its a copy paste with worse round to make it lower BR, same in game case with S. Korea T-80U if it gets added. So I dont see why Centauro should not be added to Russian TT.
sweden is way smaller and has less options , besides that we already talked about that enough, the matter is the south korean t 80, which simply is a actively used tank, just like many nations used and received leopards which is copy paste. This is not a reason for russia to get a centauro stop with your dreams
Edit. stop false flagging this is not inappropiate
Stop with your BS, I already told you theres no options with tank’s armarment on light tank for Russia, both Korean and Sweden T-80Us are excuses, either nations have vehicles in that BR range, not even mentioning Japan/China have sub nations they can fill gaps with, Sweden has Norway and Finland.
It’s not a new thing for nation to get vehicle they trialed and never operated, half of game consists of prototypes and demomstration only vehicles.
BMPT and korganez 25 , do the same role in war thunder of a scout which reduces spawn points for planes and scout drones, a light tank with a cannon is not a need in the game it is a want that doesnt need to be fullfilled
korea is an official user of the tank just like ussr, that is like saying nobody else besides germany is allowed to have leopard tanks when theys rightfully operated them to their full capabilities and not just trialed them
hahaha japan doesnt realy have good option for the sub nation
china partialy is already 2 trees , besides that they could get north korea and then they get more russian tanks as well again
who largely all operated similar vehicles
trialed isnt included in the game often, it is only the T80U which shouldnt have happend and most agree, the helicopter is the result of sweden having no real useable helicopters at all
Except T-80U Korea has is so limited in shells it would even suffer fighting 10.0 vehicles, meanwhile having armour and mobility worth of 10.7-11.0 making it a horrible option.
Not a tank’s armarment, If Centauro tanks were a want just as any other light tank with tank’s armarment Gaijin wouldnt be so willing handing it to everyone.
None have/had T-80U lol.
None had T-80 tanks in general.
stop ignoring the bmpt and the kurganez 25, they fullfill the same role , light tank with tank armament is not a need, the heli tree is a need and prerequisit in war thunder now
For in game it is, just another downtiered T-80U. It doesnt even have what Sweden one has.
APDSFS is not same as ATGM, I told you million times already, these are very different, plus typically MBTs have more CH protection, making ATGM even worse compared to APDSFS. Its you the one to ignore them being completely different in both usage and specifics. If a single premium is a need, then how a single light tank to fill the gap is a want???
All other nations have choices to add light tanks with tank’s armarment on existing and future BRs.
He is right on this one, people have been wanting more trialed vehicles even though they are not needed, for example the trialed K2NO suggestion is 85% yes.
To add to that in all honesty people have been wanting more newer and newer tank stuff all while nations still have gaps in them, this race to new BRs is not good, but it might be only thing keeping game alive.
First stabilisers, then thermals and laser rangefinders, then comes unmanned turrets on MBTs.
Given, it is often unspecified in polls where people would like to see said vehicle.
I imagine most people who voted yes would’ve done so for a Korean (sub) tree of sorts and that few would’ve wanted it in Sweden.
Yeah that could be true as well.
I was thinking because the suggestion was specifically about the Norwegian trialed K2NO so people would have initially thought it would be for Sweden.
Regardless, I fully support that one going to a future Korean tree.