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.
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.
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.
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]
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).
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
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.
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)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
