Which leads to the conclusion that they need a separate main tree
1 Like
I thought it was a joke at first, but the French tree has a little gap between land and air, and I think it’s surprisingly suitable for adding the Korean Army and Air Force trees.
2 Likes
I think launching a squadron or premium standalone in countries with high technological relevance, such as the United States, France, or Germany, will put the least burden on gaijin. On the one hand, I may be biased because I am Korean, but I think the best thing is the North-South joint tree. From WW2 to the 1980s, both North and South Korea were boring replicas of the US and Soviet Union, but as technology accumulated and each developed in a strange way, North Korean tanks like department stores or South Korean tanks that absorbed T80 and Abrams technology will be able to show off their unique charm in modern warfare!
4 Likes
But… Other than the K2, Korean vehicles are not significantly related to France, so I think the K2 tank should be divided into XK2, K2, K2PL, etc… ToT
4 Likes
I have been mentioning this many times as well, Israel and especially France got more claim on South Korea then Japan at all.
France has assisted South Korea in the developments of the K-31 pegasus, KUH-1(AS332) andLAH (EC155).
So if South Korea had to be an Sub Tree it would be logical for it to be there or Israel.
6 Likes
If Korea becomes a subtree of France, it will only be K2 at first, but I think XK2 and K2 PL will gradually come.
1 Like
i’d take joint tree, just not US subtree, anyone asking for US subtree should be smacked in the head with red brick and ebony wood.
This is the first time I have learned that there is a technological connection between Israel and South Korea. The Israel Tree hasn’t been around for a long time, so I feel like it’s too early to create a subtree, but I think it’s an option.
I am not saying that it should be placed in the United States, but rather that it is right to go there in terms of technology. I also believe that the U.S. is already saturated with MBTs, so there is no need for anything other than light armored vehicles like the K21.
2 Likes
…no, still no, keep it contained within it’s own tree.
Beside if US want light tank so bad just use their weaponised strykers, don’t pull tank from other nation.
SK can’t really support it’s own tree. There was effectively no armored vehicle development of any kind up until the mid/late Cold War. What they had up until that point was entirely American equipment, basically “Oops, all Pattons”. At best there are a couple Korean modified Pattons which wouldn’t play any different than the Pattons already in game.
At best, you’d be looking at an Israeli like tech tree that starts around 7.0 with the Pattons as your only MBTs up until the K1 prototypes around 9.0, and that’s not exactly a great sell. Most players seem very tired of the constant copy paste, and the endless numbers of not exactly stellar Pattons they have to slog through to get the to indigenous vehicles that most players care about.
That’s also not touching the air tree, which is 99% American copy paste, with the only indigenous SK vehicle I could find that might fit into War Thunder being the T-50 and it’s variants.
6 Likes
Just smack north korea to it, else i’ll make it so that NK go to CN and SK go to JP.
The situation is different in Italy and Japan. Italy still has very few prototypes in the top tier and many more to come, and the amount of Hungarian vehicles to come is not enough to threaten its identity. Japan, on the other hand, currently has almost all of its available vehicles, and even its top MBT relies on prototypes. The Korean tree has three K2s and two 120mm K1s in service with the South Korean military. That’s more than the Type 10 and Type 90, and when you include various prototypes like the TKX, test vehicles like the APS-equipped K2, and exported variants, the difference becomes very large. And that’s just the top-tier MBTs, there are countless other M48s, SPAAGs, K55s, and K9s in Korea, so a Japanese tree with a Korean subtree would look like “Japan under Korean occupation”.
7 Likes
Ariete P
Sidam Mistral
VCC-80/30
The AMV is also technically a prototype
All of these are top rank
That’s more than what Japan has, not to mention what Japan has is literally just lineup filler and not actually unique prototypes like the STC or Type 10 with APS (Although the APS Type 10 would fall into the “Yak-141” category). We still don’t have the Type 10 48t either (not that it was ever revealed what it looks like, so that’s hardly on Gaijin)
M48s, SPAAGs, K55s, and K9s
Every one of these has a Japanese equivalent aside from something like the K30 (SPAAG)
so a Japanese tree with a Korean subtree would look like “Japan under Korean occupation”.
I don’t think any reasonable person would look at the tree that way other than Koreans who are, rightfully, still mad about their past with Japan.
3 Likes
I’d like to put a veto vote on south and north Korea being in the same tree, seems a bit out of touch with the current geopolitics from those who voted that option.
NK would be a good fit for a line in China and although there’s some rough history SK and Japan are on far better terms now so if as I suspect there’s not enough for a standalone tree it would make for some good additions to Japan diversifying their very single focus top tier lineups.
1 Like
How is there enough equipment for a SK tree unless you do a united SK + DPRK tree and have it start from tier 4 or something like Israel?
SK’s vehicle’s from it’s independence after WW2 being mostly American based shores up a weaker Japan tree, who’s post war consists of a few US vehicles followed by indigenous designs. Type 74’s + SK M48 upgrades followed by Type 90’s + K1’s sounds plenty strong. Plus SK has way more SPAA options to shore up the basically exhausted Japanese post war options.
NK going to China would be interesting if it isn’t added as a united KR tree.
2 Likes
Well, not really. The Type 81 is still far from its full potential and the Type 11 is just as self contained, with even more advanced weaponry. On top of that a trailer mounted Type 11 can be implemented with the FCS vehicle, thus providing full radar search, LOAL and datalink course correction.
Japan might be lacking in some areas, namely CAS and support vehicles, but SAM isn’t one of those.
4 Likes
The geopolitical aspect? Korea is currently one country, just divided like East and West Germany! (Of course, only under the laws of SK and NL) The people of North and South Korea also desire unification, insisting on one Korea, and jointly participating in international social events such as the Olympics. Geopolitically, the North-South union tree is more correct.
Technically, as has been said above, it makes sense for NK to be parasitic on China or the Soviet Union. However, it would be absurd to say that SK has almost no technological connection with Japan. The only technological similarity between SK and Japan is that they are western countries and try to follow NATO standards. Only look at the technology system, it is right to add SK to the United States. If you continue to insist that SK be added to Japan at this level, do you think that any country that follows NATO standards can join Japan as a subtree?
Asking to add a parasitic tree simply because current diplomatic relations are close is the same as asking to suddenly insert a parasitic tree on Germany because Ukraine has become friendly with Germany against Russia. So now North Korea can form a tree with anti-Americans in the Middle East and South America!!!
I think it would be good to just ask for it as it would cause less work for the gaijin :) There is no difference between leo2 and k2 in their connection with Japan, so it would be possible for the purpose of diversifying the same tree!
4 Likes
Why should vehicle from an unrelated country go because Japan’s equipment is lacking? In that case, just asking for a copy of the Russian Pantsir will reduce the gaijin’s workload. If the Korean tree’s vehicle is poor, it’s okay if it doesn’t come out.
3 Likes