"renewed" United Korean Ground Force Tech Tree(2024/March/08) - Revising irregularly

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
,
1

I already know that the united Korean Ground Forces TT went to developer proposal a few years ago

However, a lot of time has passed since then and the proposal is outdated and insufficiently detailed, and needs to be updated with new content

As a Korean, I’ve been very disappointed to see comments like “Korea should be a Japanese subtree”, “North Korea should be a Chinese subtree”, and “Korean tree lacks vehicles” in this community.

They argue that Korea is geographically close to Japan and that the Japanese TT’s vehicles are lacking in numbers so they should be filled with Korean vehicles.
They argue that we should think about the balance of the game more than political reasons, but this doesn’t make sense.
Having the Korean TT as a subtree of the Japanese tree would omit a lot of Korean vehicles that could be in the game, and would destroy the possibility of a complete TT.
Germany already has West and East Germany together, and so does China.
Why would they want to relegate only Korea to one subtree, excluding North Korea?
Also, if a lot of Korean vehicles are added to the Japanese TT, it will be the Korean TT, not the Japanese TT.
That’s why the Korean subtree is not welcomed by the Japanese Warthunder community either.
I love Japan and currently enjoy the Japanese TT the most in the game.
As a Japanese TT player myself, I would like to see more Japanese vehicles (Type 81 TAN-SAM, MMPM, Type 89 IFV prototype, Type 90 MBT prototype, Type 60 SPRG-quad, M24(ATM), Type 16(30mm), etc…)
The gaps in the Japanese TT should be filled with Japanese vehicles, not with vehicles from other countries that have no technical relevance.

So with this post, I hope to not only renew the topic that has already been proposed, but also to explain to many people what kind of vehicles could be in the united Korean TT

I’m writing this in this thread because there’s a rule in the suggestions thread that you can’t rewrite the topic that’s already been suggested.

S.K MBT
<Rank 4>

Spoiler

M4A3E8(5.7)

<Rank 5>

Spoiler

M46(7.0)

M47(7.3)

M47E1(8.0) : 90mm M41E1 cannon, APFSDS(K241)

M48A1(7.7)

M48A2C(7.7)

<Rank 6>

Spoiler

M48A3k(8.0) : 90mm M41E1 cannon, LRF+FCS, APFSDS(K241), No stabilizer, k18 Smoke Charger

M48A5K1(8.3) : 105mm M68 cannon, LRF+FCS, APFSDS(k270), No stabilizer, Side skirt, k18 Smoke Charger

M48A5W(8.3) : No stabilizer, No Side skirt, Urdan Cupolar, M250 Smoke Charger

Tiran 6(8.7) : Imported from Israel for research use

<Rank 7>

Spoiler

https://youtu.be/44NN2uKHXbo?si=Zscb39fsdjcTVJWY

K1 Early(10.3) : 105mm M68A1/L52 cannon, APFSDS(K274)
Same or slightly higher armor as the M1 Abrams, with 100mm AP round protection on the hull side, KM250 Smoke Charger

k1 late(10.3) : Gunner, Commander sight is improved

K1a1 prototype(10.3) : Prototype with kM256 120mm/L44 gun mounted on the k1 hull, APFSDS(k276),

K1E1(10.7) : 105mm M68A1/L52 cannon, APFSDS(K274, K274N)

K1E2(10.7) : Gunner sight is improved

k1A1(11.3) : kM256 120mm/L44 cannon, APFSDS(K276)

K1A2(11.3) : CN03 120mm/L44 cannon, APFSDS(K276)

XK2(11.7) - Dozer at the bottom of the hull, KAPS, CN08 120mm/L55 cannon, K276 and K279 APFSDS, km255 Smoke Charger


K2(11.7) - No KAPS

N.K MBT
<Rank 2>

Spoiler

T-34-76(1942)(4.0)
T-34-76(1943)(4.0)

<Rank 4>

Spoiler

T-34-85(5.7)

T-34-85M(5.7)

T-34-76 Mod.1(5.7) : HEAT(BK-354M), Mounted an auxiliary fuel tank on the hull like T-34-85

M26(6.7) : captured

<Rank 5>

Spoiler

T-54(8.0) : using KPVT HMG

Type 59(8.0) : using KPVT HMG

<Rank 6>

Spoiler

T-55A(8.3) : using KPVT HMG

Chonma-ho 1(Ga)(8.7) : T-62 + KPVT HMG

Chonma-ho 2(Na)(8.7) : Added LRF+FCS

Chonma-ho 3(Da)(8.7) : Added Side Skirts to the hull, smoke charger(8)

Chonma-ho 4(Ra)(9.0) : Another name is Chonma-92, added ERA to the side and rear of the turret, added BDD armor to the front hull, Thermal Jacket, smoke charger(16)


Chonma-ho 5(Ma)(9.0) : Another name is Chonma-98, Turret shape changed(front is Angled and back is stretched)

Chonma-ho 6(Ba)(9.3) : Another name is Chonma-214, Attached BDD armor to the front of the turret on the Chonmaho-5, Added rubber plates to the front and sides of the hull

Chonma-ho-216(9.3) : 216 is the last version of the Chonma-ho improved version.
215 and 216 are nicknamed “Pokpung-ho”






Son-gun-915(9.7) : 125 mm 2A46M cannon, hull extended(wheel 5->6), Attached a ERA Block to the front of the turret and hull, Chonma-216(aka Pokpung-ho) mixed with T-72’s feature, Bulsae-2 ATGM(9M111 Fagot)x2, The driver has moved to the center of the hull








Light Vehicle
<Rank 1>

Spoiler

M8 LAC(1.0)

<Rank 2>

Spoiler

VTT323(2.3) : ZPU-2

<Rank 3>

Spoiler

M24(3.7)

PT-76B(5.3)

<Rank 4>

Spoiler

Type 63-1(6.3)

Type 62(6.7)

VTT323-ATGM(6.7) : VTT323 + Susongpo(Malyutka ATGM)x4

<Rank 5>

Spoiler

KAFV-90(7.0) : k200A1 APC + Cockerill Mk-3MA1 90mm/L36 Cannon

Type 82(7.3) : VTT323 + 85mm type 62 cannon + Susongpo(Malyutka ATGM)

BTR-80A(7.3)

KAFV-25(7.3) : Oerlikon KBA 25mm/L50

<Rank 6>

Spoiler

BlackFox(8.3) : Cockerill CSE 90LP, No stabilizer, Thermal sight, LRF+FCS
This is a wheeled APC made by Doosan Infracore for overseas sales.
Sold to Indonesia under the name “tarantula”



BMP-3(9.0)

K-21 105(10.0) : Cockerill XC8 105HP cannon, can use Falarick-105 ATGM, Thermal sight 3/3

k-21(10.0) : k-40 40mm/L70 cannon+coaxial 7.62mm M60E2, Thermal sight 3/3

<Rank 7>

Spoiler

AS-21 REDBACK(10.3) : BushMaster Mk.44S 30mm cannon, Spike missle x2, 12.7mm RWS, coaxial 7.62mm MG, IronFist APSx2(4 rounds), 76mm Smoke(8)

k-21 120(11.3) : Cockerill XC8 120HP cannon, can use Falarick-120 ATGM, Thermal sight 3/3

Tank Destroyer
<Rank 1>

Spoiler

SU-76M(2.0)

<Rank 2>

Spoiler

K105A1(2.0) : K721 truck + M2A1 105 mm towed howitzer

VTT323-85(4.0) : VTT323+D-44 85mm cannon

<Rank 3>

Spoiler

SU-85(4.3)
Tokchon-152(4.7) : 152mm D-20 cannon




ISU-122(5.3)

<Rank 4>

Spoiler

M36(5.3)

Tokchon-100(5.7) : 100mm BS-3 Cannon

SU-100(6.0)

K55(6.3)

M56(6.7)

<Rank 5>

Spoiler

k9A1(7.3)

Tokchon-122(6.3) : 122mm D-74 cannon

Tokchon-130(7.3) : SM-4-1 130mm Coast Gun


M1992(7.3) : M1992 is based on BRDM-2 but engine room is moved to front
ASG-17 Grenade launcher + Bulsae-2 ATGM(=9k111 Faggot)

<Rank 6>

Spoiler

k200-MetisM (8.7) : k200A1+9k115-2 Metis-M ATGM, Thermal 1/0

M2010 ATM(9.7) : M2010 APC + Unknown made in N.K Spike missle x8



M2020 ATGM (9.7) : M2020 APC(modified BTR) + Bulsae-5(9k135 Kornet-EM ATGM) x5


<Rank 7>

Spoiler

Jupiter MGS(11.3) : CN08 120mm/L44 cannon, Thermal sight 3/3



Anti-Air

<Rank 1>

Spoiler

KM901(1.0) : 1x K6 12.7mm HMG

<Rank 2>

Spoiler

M16(2.7)

M2010 Jun-Ma(2.7) : ZPU-2, Improved BTR-60PB

<Rank 3>

Spoiler

VTT323-ZPU-4(3.7)

VTT323-37(3.7) : 37mm 61-k cannon

VTT323-37-2(4.0) : 37mm Type 65 x2

<Rank 4>

Spoiler

K300-AA(6.7) : K-300 Truck + M167A1 20mm Vulcan cannon, No rader

<Rank 5>

Spoiler

M1985(7.0) : Tokchon hull + Extended ZSU -57-2 turret

Type 73(7.3) : Type 59 tank hull + ZSU-57-2 turret

k263A3(7.7) : K200A1 + 20mm vulcan cannon
The Korean Army’s Vulcan AA gun uses thermal sights to replace outdated night sights.



<Rank 6>

Spoiler

M1992 SPAA(8.0) : ZSU-23-2’s Rader+FCS, AK-230 30mm twin cannon


K-30 Biho(8.3) : 30mm KKCB twin cannon

Chunho(9.0) : K808 + 30mm KKCB twin cannon + EOTS

K-30 Biho SAM(9.7) : 30mm KKCB twin cannon + Shin-gung SAM x4

Pongae-2(10.0) : N.K strella-10

<Rank 7>

Spoiler

k-31 Chonma(10.3)

Premium&Event Vehicle

Spoiler

VTT323 MRL(3.0) : VTT323 hull + 122mm rocket x12 + KPV HMG - TD

T-34-76 Mod.1 “No.505”(5.7) - MBT

K230M(7.3) : k200A1 + 30mm RWS - LV

M48A5k2(8.3) : Urdan Cupola, Mounted MG changed(M2 50cal->M60D), Side skirt, K18 Smoke Charger - MBT

Chonma-215(9.3) : A.K.A Pokpung-ho, hull extended(wheel 5->6), Twin Igla, Twin Bulsae-2 ATGM(Faggot), Twin AGS-117 - MBT







XK1(9.3) - AVCR-1790 1200HP engine(Mass production has German MTU MB871 ka-501 1200HP engine), APFSDS(M735), Thermal sight 1/0 - MBT

T-80U(11.0)

K2NO(11.7) - Trophy APS, Thermal sight 3/3 - MBT

13 Likes
2

I’m sure you’ve seen my NK sub-tree suggestion, but I’ll comment here as well.

NK and SK have no technological relations. Sub-trees are, in virtually every instance, given to countries with either a) close technological relations or b) close international/geographical relations.
NK and SK only have geographical relations, as well as (obviously) historical, but we all know both of them are not pushing significantly for reunification (actively threatening to go to war with each other) and neither have any shared technology.

SK tanks are US inspired/imported, and NK tanks are Soviet imported and/or Soviet/Chinese inspired.
It makes little to no sense for them to be together in a game like WT.

Examples of sub-trees to back up my argument:
UK – South Africa

  • Close international relations and history together (even despite the horrors of colonialism)
  • Close technological relations (Olifant based on Centurion, British guns + ammunition, engines, etc.,)

Sweden – Finland

  • Close geographical and historical relations
  • Some technological similarities, albeit slightly more limited

Italy – Hungary (in future)

  • Close relations as part of the Axis during WW2
  • Limited (at best) technology sharing

There is a formula. Sub-trees are given to nations with at least 1 of these traits: close relationship (e.g. as allies) or similar technology, or both!

The only “sub-trees” that go against this formula are Taiwanese vehicles in the Chinese tree, and a few DDR tanks in the German tree. But, I would probably argue that a) Taiwanese vehicles shouldn’t be in the Chinese tree and instead should perhaps go as a US sub-tree (perhaps the same with SK tanks) and b) DDR vehicles should be split, so DDR + FRG vehicles are separated in lineups and such. But, Germany has a stronger claim to have both, as they have been unified for 30+ years. Korea hasn’t.

NK and SK are not allies – obviously –, are technically still at war, and have no technology similarities. Not to mention the presence of copy-paste, very few low-tiers, etc., a United Korea tree just doesn’t seem like a good idea. So sorry, -1.

6 Likes
3

+1 for a United Korean tech tree.

5 Likes
4

The Chuche-po, Chunma-ho, and Seon Gun-ho in your article have no technical connection to China, only the VTT323 has.
The missiles used in the 8x8 ATGM are not even Chinese-made
It’s a clone of the Russian Kornet ATGM.
If you think it’s not, it’s just your convenience mindset.
The M2020 is impossible to build in the WT because its protection and maneuverability are impossible to estimate.

WRONG.
South Korea has always consistently pursued peaceful reunification, and that remains the case today
North Korea is pushing for a reunification through nuclear weapons.
The only option for South Korea to reunify the peninsula with the United States by force is if North Korea strikes South Korea with a nuclear weapon.
You are a foreigner, so you may not know.

Sweden and Finland have very few technical connections, but geographical connections keep them together.

China and Taiwan have nothing to do with each other technically, but they are one TT because they are “the same people”.
(so Gaijin can suck up China money)

China already has Taiwanese vehicles that could be considered a subtree, and it makes no sense to have another subtree

By your logic, many of the vehicles that currently exist should be deleted.

There are certainly examples in the WT of TTs that are technically unrelated, but are geographically and historically close, and were originally one people, so they became one unified TT
It would be even more absurd to have North Korea as a subtree of China.
North Korea would not be a subtree of China unless Gaijin separated Taiwan from the Chinese TT.

11 Likes
5

Gaijin should add South Korea as subtree of Japan due to their historical connection and similarity.
North Korea would be fine to be added as Chinese subtree

2 Likes
6

you mean ‘hostility’ for connection right? XD

9 Likes
7

“ruling” maybe

8

Only 36 year among thousand of years of hostility

5 Likes
9

Both being dependent country of China and then US is not “hostility”

1 Like
10

they were dependent in text but reality is very complexed. Japan was mostly out of China’s rule and constantly invade shores of Ming and Korea. And in 1592 they invade directly through Korea to ‘make a road to invade mainland China’. We can’t call this simple dependent. And Korea and Japanese historical military tension is even recorded in 6th century as Japan attack kingdoms at south of Korea but repelled by military aid from kindgdom in north of Korea.

Even when they were dependent of US hostility never ends. Japan tries to invade Korean island at East Sea(also called as Sea of Japan) in 1950s but repelled by indigenous armed forces. Since 2000s this tension become political as Japanese politicians try to use this tension for their approval rating.

6 Likes
11

What similarity? historical connection?
It’s like trying to merge Britain and France into one TT.

8 Likes
12

I’m missing certain vehicles in the list. I’ll try upload a of these missing vehicles when i have time.

Your not wrong there’s no military connection between them all they have is an love and hate relationship, they both had there anger moments but at certain instances they both support each other like North Korea supporting South Korea in it’s dispute of dokdo island or South Korea providing them food.

However like mentioned South Korean officials are still willing to unify Korea but it simple will be difficult with North Korea’s terms.

We have multiple nations in-game that consist of western and eastern weaponry it isn’t an new concept in-game, even the suggested nations like Poland and Yugoslavia will have this. The match making in AB/RB is also randomize so you will sometimes Western and Eastern vehicles in 1 team, it would only be issues in SB but you could separate them if required in this game mode.

Could clarify what you mean by “no technology similarities”? You however right about the rest but Gaijin has made some exceptions for certain nations so it could also happen for this suggestion especially with it’s potential. Also the United Korean Tree could start from rank 4 if needed , in regards to Copy n Paste it’s something that is already present in every Tree it simple depends on the amount which isn’t the case for this suggestion (based on @spamanator500 United Korea suggestion). Maybe you could highlight which vehicles in the list you consider Copy n Paste.

In my opinion im fine with either an United Tree or Sub Tree but i do lean more for an United Korea Tree as it will be a Tree solely focused on Korean weaponry. Korean

China and Taiwan actually have an military connection though both countries signed an alliance way back called the Second United Front.

IMG_9136

5 Likes
13

Could clarify what you mean by “no technology similarities”?

South Korean tanks are American based.
North Korean tanks are Soviet/Russian/Chinese based.

SK uses American/British guns, ammunition, vehicle designs, Cockerill guns (Western), etc.

NK uses Soviet and Chinese bases for their vehicles, Soviet and Chinese guns and ammunition, etc. AFAIK the closest they have to western tech is their new NLOS ATGM (Bulsae-4), which is more of a copy of China’s HJ-10 than Israel’s Spike NLOS.

There are no shared guns, ammunition, vehicle bases, etc. Unlike practically every sub-tree in game already.

14

+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
15

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
16

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).

17

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

4 Likes
18

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
19

@보지사냥꾼

United Korean suggestion by @spamanator500

AAPV8314
AAPV83141920×3201 294 KB

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
20

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.
  • 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?