K2 Black Panther

[Rileyy3437]

+1

This is an incredibly well researched and detailed suggestion, very informative about my favourite MBT.

Would be great to see as part of a United Korean Tech Tree.

[RedentAlmeida]

K2 panther is a good tank that I would like to see on WT but it puzzzles me where should be allocated, which sub-tree or even a south korean new tech tree?

[Maccya00]

I think the South Korean tree should be a tree that starts at rank IV like the Israeli tree, not a sub-tree of some other country.
K2 Black Panther is an attractive MBT.
I would like to see him in WarThunder .

[SaabGripen]

@DiamondLag

Yes they do. GSOMIA is worth pointing to.

Here’s another meaningless argument after “They did joint training together”!

You seem to think that GSOMIA is a great scale agreement, on the level of an alliance treaty, but that is not the case. GSOMIA is merely an agreement to exchange mutual information and protect information obtained from each other. In particular, the GSOMIA relationship between Korea and Japan was terminated in 2019.

Currently, there are about 20 to 30 countries with which Korea has signed GSOMIA! In addition, Korea has agreements similar to GSOMIA with more than 10 countries. Below is a list that I found in less than a minute through the Ministry of Government Legislation’s treaty search.

• USA(대한민국 정부와 미합중국 정부간의 군사비밀보호에 관한 보안협정)
• Canada(대한민국 정부와 캐나다 정부간의 군사비밀정보의 교환 및 보호에 관한 협정)
• France(대한민국 정부와 프랑스공화국 정부간의 군사 및 군비협력분야에서 교환되는 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• Russia(대한민국 정부와 러시아연방 정부간의 군사비밀정보의 상호보호에 관한 협정)
• Ukraine(대한민국 정부와 우크라이나 정부간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• UAE(대한민국 정부와 아랍에미리트연합국 정부 간의 군사협력에 관한 협정)
• Sweden(대한민국 정부와 스웨덴왕국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보 보호에 관한 협정)
• Jordan(대한민국 정부와 요르단왕국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 교환 및 상호 보호에 관한 협정)
• NATO(대한민국 정부와 북대서양조약기구 간의 정보보안에 관한 양해각서)
• Spain(대한민국과 스페인왕국 간의 군사비밀보호에 관한 협정)
• Bulgaria(대한민국 정부와 불가리아 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 교환과 보호에 관한 협정)
• Poland(대한민국 정부와 폴란드공화국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 대한 협정)
• UK(대한민국 정부와 영국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• Australia(대한민국 정부와 호주 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 대한 협정)
• Uzbekistan(대한민국 정부와 우즈베키스탄공화국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• New Zealand(대한민국 정부와 뉴질랜드 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• Saudi Arabia(대한민국 정부와 사우디아라비아왕국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• India(대한민국 정부와 인도공화국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• Romania(대한민국 정부와 루마니아 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• Philippines(대한민국 정부와 필리핀공화국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• Qatar(대한민국 정부와 카타르국 정부 간의 군사 분야 협력에 관한 협정)
• Greece(대한민국 정부와 그리스공화국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 상호 보호에 관한 협정)
• Hungary(대한민국 정부와 헝가리 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 교환 및 상호 보호에 관한 협정)
• Thailand(대한민국 정부와 타이왕국 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 상호 보호에 관한 협정)
• Italy(대한민국 정부와 이탈리아공화국 정부 간의 국방협력에 관한 협정)
• Swiss(대한민국 정부와 스위스 연방 각의 간의 군사비밀정보의 상호 보호에 관한 협정)
• Mongol(대한민국 정부와 몽골 정부 간의 군사비밀정보의 보호에 관한 협정)
• Chile(대한민국 정부와 칠레공화국 정부 간의 국방협력에 관한 협정)

The Korean government is also pursuing the signing of GSOMIA with eight additional countries, including China and South Africa.

In conclusion, GSOMIA is not as huge relationship as you might imagine, it’s no different than “they have diplomatic relations by exchanging ambassadors with each other.”

Korea has signed and maintained GSOMIA include the United States, Russia, UK, France, Italy, China, Sweden, and Israel. Then, why is it that only Japan can claim rights over Korea, beating out these many countries? Because they just eat rice?

[SaabGripen]

@DiamondLag

Yes, they currently are under the recent “American-Japanese-Korean trilateral pact”

This is NOT something tangible “pact” like NATO or the Warsaw Pact.

It is simply a name for two separate alliances centered on the United States. Simply, ‘A and B shook hands’ and ‘A and C shook hands’ does not mean that ‘B and C shook hands.’

@DiamondLag

This pact also includes cooperation and exercises between the tree partners.

South Korean Ground Forces Tech Tree

https://forum.warthunder.com/t/south-korean-ground-forces-tech-tree/9099/48 https://nara.getarchive.net/media/onboard-the-us-navy-usn-dock-landing-ship-uss-harpers-ferry-lsd-49-us-marine-5be033 There seem to be a lot of fans of “Military drills together IRL”. That’s why I want to remind you of the “Military drills together IRL” the US had with Russia. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/19/africa/south-africa-russia-china-military-drills-intl-cmd/index.html South Africa also did “Military drills…

[DiamondLag]

@SaabGripen

You seem to think that GSOMIA is a great scale agreement, on the level of an alliance treaty, but that is not the case. GSOMIA is merely an agreement to exchange mutual information and protect information obtained from each other. In particular, the GSOMIA relationship between Korea and Japan was terminated in 2019

No i dont think i made the case it was an agreement that meant close cooperation.

The agreement was also restarted in 2023.

@SaabGripen

It is simply a name for two separate alliances centered on the United States. Simply, ‘A and B shook hands’ and ‘A and C shook hands’ does not mean that ‘B and C shook hands.’

I dont think there being some mediator country between the two discredit the fact its a major step for joint militaty cooperation.

@SaabGripen

There seem to be a lot of fans of “Military drills together IRL”. That’s why I want to remind you of the “Military drills together IRL” the US had with Russia. South Africa also did “Military drills together IRL” jwith Russia and China. To sum up, your basis is only that “Japan lacks vehicles.” Then, why does the solution have to be Korea? Because they are “Asian”?

Yeah i think the insistent need to have some arbitrary requirement filled for countries to be in trees together is for the most part quite silly.

I point to things because for some reason people want those boxes ticked. And i do make it open for the fact there are many countries that would be perfectly fine additions to Japan or Korea

I think the responses following on from the messages you quoted made that fairly clear.

[Arctic-Fox]

just waiting for mod to come in and say: STAY ON TOPC
using scary red letters and everything

[Arctic-Fox]

lmao

[WreckingAres283]

Plz, do not use red, its only for Mods.

[Arctic-Fox]

Ah sorry, didn’t know that
but what does red text even mean?
thought it was just coloring

[Maccya00]

I don’t know why so many players want to sub-tree…
If it doesn’t eliminate the debate forever, I don’t think it should be sub-treated.

[Rileyy3437]

I very much want it for its own tree, like China, the early tiers may be C&P but afterwards theres a good deal of domestic and heavily modified vehicles across North and South Korea.

[대한항공]

United Korea, S.Korea or Poland would be the only countries which can get K2.

[SaabGripen]

@DiamondLag

I think this limits ones self too much. One should be relatively open about what nation pairings work to make a nicely themed and interesting tree to play.

Open mind! That’s a good thing.

So look for Japanese vehicles made with Japanese technology to fill the gap of the Japan TT. Stealing technologically unrelated random vehicles to fill the ‘Tech’ Tree is not an option. Just as no one would argue that Algeria’s T-90s, Su-30s and Pantsirs should be added to the French TT to fill the gap in the French TT.

[Maccya00]

@Rileyy3437

I very much want it for its own tree, like China, the early tiers may be C&P but afterwards theres a good deal of domestic and heavily modified vehicles across North and South Korea.

I too would very much like our own tree.
I think it would be preferable to start with rank IV like Israel.
It would be good to combine it with North Korea to increase the number of vehicles.
Both Korea and North Korea have many interesting vehicles and it would be very sad to see more vehicles omitted by sub-treeing.

[Rileyy3437]

I think Korea should be allowed to start with North Korean T-34-85’s and British Centurions and Cromwells, US Pershings etcetera.

[Maccya00]

@Rileyy3437

I think Korea should be allowed to start with North Korean T-34-85’s and British Centurions and Cromwells, US Pershings etcetera.

I think that vehicles officially provided by the US and other countries to the ROK military could be incorporated into the tree.

Too many C&Ps is a problem, but I think it would be healthier to create our own tree rather than forcing countries with little historical contact with each other to merge for the sake of matching numbers.

[Rileyy3437]

The North Koreans had their own T-34-85’s whereas the US and British tanks were still part of their armed forces but still used alingside the south during the Korean war. Which is why I think it would be acceptable to use them as a basis for the tree.

Unfortunately South Korea never officially received these tanks and all were returned at the end of the war.

A higher starting rank like Israel would work though. So long as there is a Korean tree as a Subtree would not be doing it justice.

[Maccya00]

I would never forgive them if they tried to sub-tree the tree of a promising nation like Korea.

[金头盔-蒋佳冀大校]

@_David_Bowie The frontal Los is around 780 information from the guy take picture from poland, here’s more image