+1, the only people that want Korea split into 2 subtrees to 2 different countries just repost the same racist takes over and over again
Why not combine UK, France, and Germany? they’re close to each other and have historical ties!
8 Likes
Challenge: Explain why Korea needs to be split into two trees while China gets to have both Western and Eastern tech together and East German gets to be fully integrated into German tree (Not a sub tree) [IMPOSSIBLE]
6 Likes
How is it racist to say they should be in different trees? I don’t see the logic. It would be racist if the argument was for all Korean (North and South), Japanese, Chinese, etc. vehicles to be in the same tree.
It is an argument based predominantly on tech similarities.
Why not combine UK, France, and Germany? they’re close to each other and have historical ties!
They don’t share very close ties, nor really any complete historical ties (i.e. France and UK fought against Germany for almost the entirety of Rank I-IV vehicles in game.), and don’t have similar technology.
Sure, a few guns are the same (e.g. L7 105), but they all have their own unique indigenous vehicles that were built mostly by themselves, often indigenous ammunition, engines, etc.
Sub-nations don’t have that. They often have vehicles that had their development aided by another close country. Again, such as SA. Olifants are (heavily) modified Centurions, Rooikats have some german influence but their prototypes had British origins, and SA was a colony, then an independent country with close British ties, and then finally a fully independent and democratic country with fewer British ties.
And the arguments present to argue against UK, France and Germany being combined are the same arguments I use to argue against SK and Nk being combined.
- No very close ties (obviously shared history and people, but they are not unified and technically remain at war)
- No technological similarities
Challenge: Explain why Korea needs to be split into two trees while China gets to have both Western and Eastern tech together and East German gets to be fully integrated into German tree (Not a sub tree) [IMPOSSIBLE]
I don’t think China should have received Taiwanese vehicles, for the same arguments as above. In an ideal world I think I would put them as a sub-tree in the US tree.
I also don’t think DDR vehicles should be in with other German tanks. There is slightly more of an argument in favour, as they have been reunified for 30+ years. But, imo, DDR tanks should either be separated from FDR tanks (but remain in the same tree), or should perhaps be a sub-tree in the Soviet tree? I don’t really know.
But these solutions are predicated on Gaijin expanding trees to have more than 5 lines maximum, which they haven’t done yet. So NK as a USSR sub-tree needs Gaijin to expand to 6 lines. SK as a US sub-tree needs that as well. NK as a Chinese sub-tree doesn’t (and they still share geographical, political, and technological relationships).
I guess we just disagree then.
AFAIC the German and Chinese trees were the best possible way to rep these countries with all their available tech, nicely filling out their TTs by filling in gaps with different doctrines of tech (NATO vs Warsaw). Subtrees are an awful way to do it as the US and USSR are bloated enough as it is and any addition to a tree immediately implies that the subtree (ST) is subservient to the host TT (HTT). STs also bloat up the HTT while still not addressing the complaint that the equipment being added is unrelated (Not relevant at all TBH but people realllllllly care about it for some reason)
Combined TTs are fine and people that don’t like having T72s and Leopards on the same TT have no real reason to not like that except for organizational OCD.
TTs in the game are separated by ethno-national lines, not alliances, and for me, STs were a mistake from the getgo. Countries like South Africa should be a separate tree with other African nations (Rhodesia???), Sweden should be rettconned into Scandinavia and include Norway as well in the future, and the two Koreas have more than enough unique equipment to justify following precedent already in the game and making a PRC/ ROC style tree
5 Likes
However you mentioned this :
And this
Both countries have imported similar Western and Eastern weapon systems and ammunition with also some derivatives of them, so technically they somewhat share similar technologies but it’s still a small procentage compared to the other weapons systems they have.
Little list of similar weapons systems in their possession:
| North Korea | South Korea |
|---|---|
| T-62 | Tiran 6 (unmodified T-62 for OPFOR) |
| T-72M | T-72M (OPFOR) |
| MD-500 helicopter | MD-500 helicopter |
| 76mm OTO melara and also an derived version of it. | 76mm OTO melara |
| Type 85 (AK-47) | DAK47 (South Korean AKM) but also the regular AK-47 |
| 9K38 Igla | 9K38 Igla |
There is also some claims that North Korea created there own versions of the M16 and K2 rifle (source : Armed Forces of North Korea : On the Path of Songun by Joost Oliemans aka Oryxspioenkop)
Also even the latest North Korean vehicles/aircraft displayed in parades are influenced by American designs such as the recent RQ-4A Global Hawk and MQ-9 Reaper look alike.
4 Likes
@보지사냥꾼
I mentioned that i didn’t see certain vehicles in the list maybe they named different in your list, i’ll however mention them and then you can see in the visual tree.
South Korea
M-511(KM250) with the M45F Turret - Rank II
K105A1 - (not in the visual tree)
K200 SPAA - Rank V
T-72M1 - Rank VI (unnecessary)
North Korea
IS-2M - Rank IV
VTT-323 with an 85mm - RANK IV
M2020 with the 122mm gun - (not in the visual tree)
3 Likes
Except nothing here would be present in game, other than:
- Igla
- T-72M
- Possibly. Wasn’t in my NK suggestion, though, and it’s one vehicle for both nations, likely an event/premium/squadron. Although, we don’t know the variants of T-72 that NK obtained, it could not be the T-72M1.
- T-62
- NK has an entire line of all their MBTs (other than the M2020) based on the T-62, numbering a couple thousand in total.
SK has 17 unmodified Tirans.
- NK has an entire line of all their MBTs (other than the M2020) based on the T-62, numbering a couple thousand in total.
- MD-500
- Maybe. I don’t know enough about helicopters, nor have I seen a heli tree suggestion for either Korea.
I personally don’t think this is enough to justify being in the same tree.
Also even the latest North Korean vehicles/aircraft displayed in parades are influenced by American designs such as the recent RQ-4A Global Hawk and MQ-9 Reaper look alike.
And their M2020 is based on the T-14, M1 Abrams/Zulfiqar (both similar already), and many others. Does this mean the M2020 should go to Russia, America or a future Iranian tree?
We already see not only China (PRC+ROC) but also Germany (FRG+DDR), Sweden, Israel, and many captured vehicles from another nations in this game, so we’ve come too far to scream “Mixing East and West? Noooo!”, it would be considered a double standard.
Meanwhile, I don’t like what the OP suggested. Jupiter is a mockup, and the name of the Ch’ŏnma variations are not appropriate - it’s like naming the Soviet Union’s Strela-10 as SA-13 and the 2S1 as M-1974.
The names of the KAFV series are inconsistent, and the names of the KAFV 25 should not have an A at the end.
Pon’gae-2 is the name of the missile, not the system.
The OP seems to think that the ‘Strella’ in VTT-323 and the ‘Strella’ called Pon’gae-2 are the same thing. The ‘strela’ in the VTT-323 is 9K32, which is SA-7. MANPADS with a maneuvering limit of 7G. And the other ‘strela’ called Pon’gae-2 is 9K35, or SA-13, which is the SAM we can see in-game now.
While the suggestion that was passed to developers may be ‘outdated’, what the OP suggests is not ‘sufficient’ either. In other words, we need something better than NamuWiki.
7 Likes
Nation A) must simple have an produced weapon from Nation B) to justify this set an connection for both countries.
However i didn’t meant this to be an justification but more like explanation, even though South Korea has been more influenced by Western nations it still imported, used and built their own version of Eastern weapons. Same story for North Korea so they share so similar technologies but it has no connection between them.
However you could argue about justification in regards to the K2 rifle which North Korea did produce (unlicensed).
North Korea received T-72 Urals from Iran in the 1970s, there’s also claims that North Korea received T-72Ms from the USSR but i stay skeptical.
North Korea is in possession of the MD 500D/E
Unfold
South Korea is in possession of the MD 500 Defender
Unfold
Also an United Korean Helicopter Tree has been in the suggestions list for some weeks.
Like mentioned above no justification but explanation, both countries have been influenced by Western and Eastern countries so it won’t be odd to see them in 1 Tree. Poland, Hungary or an Yugoslavian Tree are an premie example.
1 Like
+1
Poland, Hungary or an Yugoslavian Tree
Yes, but these are individual countries. They have a mix because they have used a mix of vehicles at the same time, in the same army, in the same country.
The only country that goes against this is Yugoslavia, but it was one country for the majority of vehicles that would be in game, leaving only late rank VI/rank VII to be split between its successor states. (and even then, they share(d) vehicles)
Korea hasn’t been a single country since the late 40s.
Nation A) must simple have an produced weapon from Nation B) to justify this set an connection for both countries.
This is a little bit of hyperbole, but WW2 Germany used some of the same technology as the USSR.
They captured T-26s, BTs, KV-1s, T-34s, 76mm guns on numerous Soviet and German chassis’, etc. They honestly have more shared vehicles and weapons than the 2 Koreas do. And they were both at war with each other, like the Koreas. So… should they be one tree? Do you not see the logical flaw in this? The only difference is that Korea is made up of (majority) of one ethnic group with a similar history pre-1940s.
But is similar history pre-1940s really enough to justify a tree together, especially when no Korean vehicles or weapons were produced during that time — every one of them comes from after the division, from their respective “allies” (US or USSR).
They are still in possession of similar technologies/weapon systems (all weapons) but again im not trying to justify through similar technologies was just explain this as you mentioned that they have no technology similarities which they actually do.
Will however see how it will play out, Gaijin has made some exceptions and they could very well do it again especially with the number of unique/modified vehicles the Tree possess.
2 Likes
Sure, I’ll wait for you to write a new one with better sources and rationale than my post! : )
1 Like
You didn’t cite a single source nor did you actually describe any of the vehicles in the post. You just posted a tree with vehicles in it, improperly labeled a good amount of them, and just put pictures under the names. This is not nearly as comprehensive as the original.
Edit: You also didn’t add a poll at the top to gauge people’s interest which is a pretty major part of the suggestion format.
North Korea:
Tier 4:
T-34-85 - 5.7
Type 63 - 6.3
PT-85 - 7.0
Tier 5:
Chonma-Ho I - 8.0 (3BM-3)
Chonma-Ho II - 8.3 (3BM-6)
Chonma-Ho III - 8.3 (3BM-6)
Chonma-Ho IV/Early - 8.7 (3BM-21)
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 II - 9.7 (125-I)
Pokpung-Ho IV - 10.0 (BTA4)
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 92 [IV/Late] - 8.7 (3BM-21)
Pokpung-Ho III - 10.7 (BTA-4)
South Korea:
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:
M48A5KW - 9.3 (K274)
PV-1 - 9.3 (K270)
K1 - 9.7 (K270)
K1E1 - 10.3 (K274)
Tier 7:
K1A1 - 10.7 (K276)
K1E2 - 10.7 (K274N)
K1A2 - 11.3 (K279)
K2 - 11.7 (K279)
K2 PIP - 11.7 (K279N)
Premium:
PV-2 - 9.3 (K270)
2 Likes
I think OP must be insane for suggestion for the Songun-Ho to be only 9.3BR
The turret machine gun area gives us a little glimse into how insanely thick that turret is
The Songun-Ho also has hull which appears to be angled probably even more than 75 degrees and gets ERA on top of that. Its armour is definitly way better than T-72M1 whilst at the same time since its a tank from 2010’s, it would have access to Modern Chinese 125mm APFSDS that they buy from them. Then those 2 Bulsae-3 ATGM’s feature 152mm tandem warheads rated 1200mm of chemical penetration.
At 9.3BR, it would be utterly broken
2 Likes
I want to know IF Republic of Korea ground TT in japan TT, how will Korean players react?
Could be the same reaction like back in 2022 when somebody suggested South Korea to be fused with Japan, it however backfired badly and resulted in the removal of the suggestion. People’s opinion can change but Gaijin could however still receive some backlash like the Taiwan flag issues which reached their newspaper.
Korea however could be worse but will see when it’s officially confirmed.
EDIT : it was all fake - Sons of Attila - Rumor Round-Up and Discussion (Part 1) - #3910
2 Likes
FAKE
3 Likes
K1A1
K276 APFSDS
Round Length: 973mm
Round Weight: 19.7kg
Projectile Length: 703.6mm
Projectile Weight (with sabot): 7.35kg
Projectile Weight (without sabot): ~4.4kg
Penetrator Length: 590mm
Penetrator Material: Heavy Tungsten Alloy
Penetrator Weight: ~4.2kg
Muzzle Velocity: 1700m/s (L/44)
Velocity at 2000m: 1580m/s (L/44)
Penetration
556mm @ 0m (0) - 1700m/s
497mm @ 0m (30)
325mm @ 0m (60) - 650mm LOS
514mm @ 2000m (0) - 1580m/s
460mm @ 2000m (30)
300mm @ 2000m (60) - 600mm LOS
