North Korean Sub-Tree

Well, they have at least the 9 ones here.

1 Like

Yeah, most are just T-62s with what is probably some sort of add on Composite and Steel. But I can definitely see them doing what they did with the Chinese and just throw them in with South Korea. And just call the tech tree “Korea”.

One Korea Tech Tree would be much better imo.

China also has a United Tree and consists of both the PRC and RoC in one with Soviet / USA / Chinese EQ mixed together - i don’t see a Reason why North Korea shouldn’t be in a United Korea Tree especially since it would give more available Vehicles for a potential Korea Tree.

6 Likes

I 100% agree on this.

An United Korean Tree offers 95+ vehicles (75% unique/modified) why not go with this first instead of having a Tree with far less vehicles available and you would have a Tree focused on both Korean build and used vehicles.

4 Likes

United korean tree would be better idea

5 Likes

I agree with GrafEule, as well as GildyMenn21.

Also, technically, the Ch’ŏnma variants are technically related to the USSR, not China, because they are based on the T-62.

Moreover, from a gameplay-related perspective, the China tree doesn’t even need a North Korea subtree. Instead of the sloppy logic of “Communist Asians? Put them in one tree!”, adding China’s export vehicle lines to the China tree is more representative of China’s technical history.

4 Likes

China’s export vehicles don’t have to be ignored in the case of adding NK.

The USSR/Russia already has 5 lines, a lot of other NK vehicles are Chinese inspired (light tanks and TDs on the base of Chinese APCs, for one) and China and the USSR vehicles share technology anyway.

Not to mention China has closer international relations to NK than Russia does. I’m not putting them together because “communist Asians.”

Either option does work, but I’d like to make the case for them to go with China.

You could just separate the vehicles, Chinese related vehicles go to China and Soviet related vehicles go to the Soviets, they already do this with other nations.

1 Like

That would be a bit odd though. Afaik there aren’t any nations like this in game either – there are one-offs, such as Canada (C2 in Germany, ADATS in UK) but not entire vehicle lineages. Imo it’s much better for them to all be together, in one or the other tree.

I understand that, but it’s still a possibility. Canada, Poland and a few others are done this way.

North Korea seeming closer to China than Russia, this is the current situation. Macroscopically, North Korea tried to balance between Russia and China depending on the timing. This isn’t specifically North Korea, it’s a common way for small countries to survive and pursue their national interests.

1 Like

This is Alexei Krivoruchko, the Deputy Defense Minister, who is involved in Russia’s defense contracting and equipment procurement. He toured a North Korean weapons display to purchase North Korean-made weapons and ammunition for use by the Russian military at the ‘somewhere’.

1 Like

UPDATED – 28/08/2023

Added 8 new vehicles, including 4 SPAA in their own line.
M1978 SPAA
M1985 SPAA
M1989 SPAA
Strela 10 (HT-16PGJ)

M1992 – ATGM carrier
Ch’ŏnma (1986) – MBT
M2018 – ATGM carrier
M2020 (2023) – MBT

Also touched up a few descriptions and added a couple new vehicles to the potential vehicles list.

I prefer the Korean Tree with both NK and SK tanks

North Korea Line
Tier 4:
T-34-85 - 5.7
Type 63 - 6.3
PT-85 - 7.0

Tier 5:
Chonma-Ho I - 8.3 (3BM-3)
Chonma-Ho III - 8.7 (3BM-21)
Chonma-Ho 92 - 9.0 (3BM-28)

Tier 6:
Chonma-Ho 98 - 9.3 (3BM-28)
Chonma-Ho 214 - 9.3 (3BM-28)
Pokpung-Ho I - 9.7 (3BM-36)
Pokpung-Ho III - 10.0 (3BM-36)

Tier 7:
Songun-Ho I - 10.3 (BTA4)
Songun-Ho II - 10.7 (BTA4)
M2020 early - 11.7 (DTC10E-125)
M2020 late - 11.7 (DTC10E-125)

Premium:
Chonma-Ho II - 8.3 (3BM-6)
Pokpung-Ho II - 9.7 (3BM-36)

South Korean Line
Tier 4:
M4A3 76(w) HVSS - 5.7
M26 - 6.3

Tier 5:
M47 - 7.3 (M431)
M48A3K - 8.0 (K241)
M48A5K1 - 8.7 (K270)
M48A5K2 - 8.7 (K270)

Tier 6:
PV-1 - 9.3 (K270)
K1 - 9.7 (K270)
K1E1 - 10.3 (K274)
K1A1 - 10.7 (K276)

Tier 7:
K1E2 - 10.7 (K274N)
K1A2 - 11.3 (K279)
K2 - 11.7 (K279)
K2 PIP - 11.7 (K279N)

Premium:
M48A5KW - 9.3 (K274)
PV-2 - 9.3 (K270)

Anti Air Line
Tier 4:
VTT323-37-2 - 5.0

Tier 5:
VTT323-57-2 - 7.0
K263A3 - 7.7
K-30 Biho - 8.0

Tier 6:
Pongae-2 - 9.3
K-30 Biho SAM - 10.0

Tier 7:
K-31 Chonma - 11.3

IFV / Tank Destroyers
Tier 4:
M36 - 5.7
Tokchon-100 - 6.0
KAFV-90 - 6.3

Tier 5:
Tokchon-122 - 7.0
K9A1 - 7.7
Tokchon-130 - 7.7
k200-MetisM - 8.3

Tier 6:
K21-40 - 9.0
K21-105 - 9.7
AS-21 REDBACK - 10.3

Tier 7:
Jupiter MGS - 11.3

1 Like

A T-62 clone, 0.7 BR below the actual T-62? Even if they supposedly have weaker armour, it’s not going to be this much.

This then messes up the BRs of all the other Ch’ŏnma‘s.

As well as some incorrect names that just… don’t make sense. You have both the ‘Chonma-Ho III’ and Ch’ŏnma-92 (at different BRs!) when they are the same tank. Chonma-Ho III is the US DoD designation for the Ch’ŏnma-92.

Same with the ‘Chonma-Ho IV’, which is the same tank as the Ch’ŏnma-98, but you’ve put a 0.7 BR gap in between them. You also call the Chonma-Ho IV the early version, what do you mean by this?

You’ve also incorrectly given the “Pokpung-Ho” (real name: Ch’ŏnma-215/216) the 125mm, when it seems much more likely (based on photo analysis) that they retain the 115mm, with the first 125mm armed tank being the Son’gun.

And then the age old debate of whether NK tanks should go with SK, which has been discussed in depth on numerous threads.

Sorry if I come across as a bit harsh, but some of these are silly mistakes that are just the internet not bothering to find the correct names for vehicles, and in doing so, creating ‘new’ tanks or names by accident.

1 Like
  1. Why is the Songun-ho a top tier tank when it is inferior to the later Ch’onma’s in pretty much every regard?

  2. DPRK tanks don’t actually carry all those missiles in combat, that’s just for parades to show them off. Look at any live exercise and you’ll see they never have them on.

  3. The thing often called the “Ch’onma-ho III” is a fake tank. No photos of it exist and although it’s supposed to have a thermal sleeve, no later variants have it. It’s speculated it’s most likely a misidentified “Ch’onma-ho IV”

The Chinese tree currently has the T-34 (1943). If you look in the War Thunder wiki, they correctly point out that the Chinese never used this vehicle, only the North Koreans did. Which technically makes this the first North Korean tank in the game.

No…Songun-ho was based off of t-72/T-80 chassis

Chonma-ho started as t-62 then was upgraded to look more like T-72
Secondly the DPRK could use missiles- in training they may not want to damage parts

1 Like
  1. Has the 125mm which, with either Soviet (and definitely Chinese export) rounds, outclasses the 115mm in all ways. Also still has similar armour and mobility, as well as the ATGMs/MANPADs.

  2. Like @_6kangn said, they could be taken off during exercises to avoid damage. But for example, we know the M2020’s ATGM launchers work while mounted, so it is entirely likely the very similar/same launchers work on the previous vehicles.

  3. I believe I have seen images of it or a similar variant. I will have to have a look and add them to the post. If it turns out to be fake, I will adjust accordingly.