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.
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.
Hello, person who originally made that suggestion here. The thread was taken down after they had to have two mods permanently on it because of erm… “inappropriate comments towards user’s life” being a constant, in which I asked them to take it down since the point was pretty clear.
Originally, I did not particularly care if SK was added as a subtree to Japan, and I say this as someone who is Korean. However, the OP @보지사냥꾼 makes a very good point in stating that any subtree would kneecap the further development of Korean vehicles in this game, and would otherwise dilute the Japanese tree. If you look at my activity history, I play Japan vehicles the most. I’m only interested in seeing Japanese vehicles/prototypes fill the gaps in the tree, not in Gaijin putting in any half measures to be lazy. I’m rather sick of copypastes being used to fill gaps, even if they come under the guise of a subtree addition.
While I am sure others have done so already to an extent, I’d like to more substantially refute the claims made by some like @ChieftainWarrior , in a more civil manner. Claims that he is racist are rather ridiculous
NK and SK only have geographical relations
Obviously the OC admits that they have historical relations. However these relations go on for thousands of years; NK and SK are both descendants of a single nation that existed on the penninsula for several centuries: Joseon. Just because attempts at reunification have not materialized thus far, this should not negate the historical connections. NK and SK have infinitely more in common with each other than any neighboring countries. I don’t know why the fact that the countries not have reunified yet should be seen as countering their cultural relations. No one here is saying that East and West Germans are a completely different peoples after being split for several decades.
He also goes on to list UK-South Africa, Sweden-Finland, and Italy-Hungary. He insists that there is a formula where subtrees “are given to nations with at least 1 of these traits”. I fail to see how NK and SK fail to satisfy the close, geographical and historical relations metric he uses for Sweden-Finland and UK-South Africa. I would argue that the relations of NK and SK are exponentially stronger than those two relations, let alone Italy-Hungary. For example, the Swedish language is an Indo-European language whereas Finnish is Uralic.
Just because nations are not allies does not mean they should be precluded from a tree. This is a facetious argument. Why are Czech vehicles in the Italy tree, even thogh Italy was a member of the Axis which supported the invasion of Czechoslovakia? That argument makes no sense.
There is already precedent. The Chinese tree exists as the sum of two constituents: PRC and ROC. Whether he likes it or not, this tree is already is the game, so it should not be surprising if there is a United Korea tree. And, PRC and ROC succeed in the formula he set forth; they share both historical and geographical ties.
The US and USSR do not need any subtrees. This should not be up for debate. These are nations that have( or had) immense military-industrial complexes. The different variants and protoypes made by each nation means thousands of possibilities for each.
My problem is that OC claims to be a purist and is following a formula for which nation gets which subtree, yet refuses to follow that formula when it checks out for NK and SK
