Again with the exercise excuse which the US organized. I guess India can be in the Chinese Tree according to you post.
https://forum.warthunder.com/t/south-korean-ground-forces-tech-tree/9099/198
Because when I talk about this tree to people I know and they seem confused, I specifically built this tree to have around 6 vehicles at every rank, to make the tree easier to grind. This is not the full list of South Korean vehicles that could be added to war thunder, and the tree could just about double in size if we were able to add everything they used, but I felt that lowering the copy paste as much as possible, and having as mostly different and very unique vehicles was far better than just as many as possible, making the grind even worse.
politically speaking south korea would fit better in US but reallistically and by gaijin logics it would end up in japan, tbh i would like to see more the type 10 with aps than a subtree lol
Sorry, but a military exercise (organised by the US in the first place) isn’t a reason to add South Korean vehicles to the Japanese tree when they otherwise have nothing to do with the development or use of these vehicles - if anything, I wish people would talk about that more than the politics, because that’s the most important one imo.
Germany, Italy, Britain and even China (among many others) have taken part in RIMPAC exercises organised by the United States, shall we put all their vehicles in the American tree?
May I weight in my opinion? I would love to see Korean vehicles in War Thunder as well! Ch’ŏnma-ho is one of the memorable ones for me, thanks to War Game Red Dragon.
In my opinion, the best way is the Independent Korean tree, be it from Rank 3/4 or from Rank 1, while the 2nd best one is US-China one; South Korean vehicles to US, and North to China.
Believe it or not, I do believe that Korean tech tree is possible, with its rich history, it can even begin from Rank 1 like many other nations, starting from Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea’s equipment to the modern South Korean’s and North Korean’s ones. While the early/low tier parts of the tech tree might look copy-paste like Chinese, I do believe that, with Crew Voices, Skins, and decors , those vehicles can feel unique and not-so-cheaply implemented.
Example of low tiers/early vehicles for Korean Tech Tree
Can anyone offer me a reason as to why this can’t be a Japanese sub-tree, other than political sensitivities?
It would mean that Japan and Korea would share a much larger tech tree with more options, as opposed to bloating the US tech tree or adding a very slim Korean tech tree (see the Israel problem).
Even if you throw out political issues between the two countries it still wouldn’t make sense because these two countries have no military connections unlike the other subtrees, it’s like asking for China to receive Austrian vehicles. Japan also has other subtree option which would make sense
The US was never an option as it would be unnecessary and an standalone South Korea could be possible but the majority would rather see an United Korean Tree (NK+SK) which would have more ground vehicles then some minor nations.
If we ignore the fact that NK is a closed totalitarian state, with all of the balancing and research problems that might come from that.
Because half the vehicles have nothing to do with Japan and shouldn’t be there, especially things like the K1 tanks which were designed with US help, are massively based on the XM-1 and for which the US provides composite armor. Then there’s stuff like the Russian BMP-3, T-80U which shouldn’t be even in the US tree if added.
In addition, most of SK additions would be at 8.0-11.7, where Japan already has a filled out tree with actually good vehicles (8.0-9.7), only lacking in SPAA at 11.0+ (which will be rectified when Type 81 gets the radar missiles), while the SK additions alone wouldn’t make a good lineup at 10.0-11.0 where Japan has nothing, while the US does have something, altough mediocre and which could be filled in with SK (or if they actually ever add non event vehicles there). The US 8.7-10.0 is also pretty atrocious.
Anyways, I just don’t want to see the K1 tanks in the Japanese tree as they logically make sense only in the US tree, the other SK vehicles can go wherever.
US 8.7-10.0 could easily be fixed by adding later M60 variants, wheeled guns like LAV-90/105, and “Century” jets that we skipped over on the way to the F-4C
What kind of balance and research problems would it cause? Maybe in sim some adjustments would have to be made but the United Korean Tree would not be any different from some other nations in-game.
However gaining information might be difficult to find but we have some estimations and information of certain North Korea assets as these have been shipped to foreign countries.
I mean the ROK military was almost entirely built on Japanese institutions more-so than they ever were on US institutions. Pretty much all of the top leadership of the ROKA during and for a significant time after were educated in Imperial Japanese military institutions and served some role in the IJA.
- Lee Hyung-geun (IJA field artillery captain ROK CCCS which was the highest military position in all of the ROK)
- Chung Il-kwon (IJA cavalry officer ROK CCCS)
- Paik Sun-yup (LT Manchuria later ROK CCCS then president)
- Yu Jae-hyung (Captain IJA ROKA CCCS)
- Kim Jong-oh (2nd LT IJA ROKA CCCS)
5 of the 6 of the highest military position in the ROKA Chairman of the Combined Chiefs of Staff to ever be appointed were ex-IJA volunteers
Now Commander of the ROKA
- Won Yong-deok (Manchuria officer)
- Lee-Eung-jun (Maj Gen of the IJA)
2 of the 3 Commanders of the Army ever appointed were ex-IJA volunteers
Now Chief of Staff of the army
- Lee Eung-jun (repeat of above but as CoSA)
- Chae Byong-duk (Major IJA)
- Shin Tae-young (LT Gen IJA)
- Seon-yeop Baek (Manchrian officer)
- Chung Il-kwon (repeat as CoSA)
- Lee Jong-chan (Major IJA)
- Paik Sun-yup (Repeat as CoSA)
- Chung Il-kwon (Repeat as CoSA)
- Lee Hyung-geun (Repeat as CoSA)
- Song Yo-Chan (IJA enlisted)
- Jang Do-young (LT IJA )
- Choi Young-hee (2nd LT IJA)
- Choi Gyong-rok (IJA reserve academy)
The first 13 Chief of staff of the ROKA were all volunteers of the IJA and this trend only stopped when the ones after were too young to serve during the Japanese occupation.
It was so ingrained on both sides of the 38th that the North Koreans had to do an ideological purge on Imperial Japanese sympathizers through reeducation rather than execution because they couldn’t find the same talent elsewhere.
https://www.dailynk.com/북한공군-일본군-출신이-창설-주도/
Combine that with the fact that Japan who has a pacifist constitution’s only active participation in combat post-war was in the Korean war. The need for Japan to do minesweeping was seen as so necessary that the ban placed on IJN members in the JMSDF was lifted just so they could help.
As for equipment usage you have all the leftover WW2 equipment and examples such as using Kawasaki KH-4’s JMSDF S-2A Tracker, Kawasaki built T-33A.
Doesn’t this apply to most sub-trees? What does the KF41, BTR-80A, or T-72 have to do with Italy. What does a PT-76, Mig-21, or Charioteer have to do with Sweden. I would actually argue that South Korean vehicles belong more in Japan than those other 2 examples as they both operated a lot of similar or identical US tech.
I’m sorry, but saying Japan is a healthy TT while the US of all tech trees is lacking content is pretty hilarious. The potential domestic content for the US not in-game atm is probably 5x larger than the current Japanese TT. If the US even got their potential vehicles they could add, then they could easy have over 1000 vehicles.
Why ask for an explanation if you guys don’t want to hear it? You can’t say that there is 0 connection when it historically exists even if it doesn’t match your worldview.
T-33A is from Lockheed, not from Kawasaki. Those T-33A were once given to JASDF by USAF and then given again to ROKAF, not what JASDF gives their Kawasaki T-33A. Same as S-2 tracker which were directly imported from USAF not by JMSDF.
Of course as Oxy saids there will be no Korea as sub tree for Japan, but korean equipment is still as a US vehicle, as Merkava was event vehicle of US and then got independent.
Never tink Korean vehicles as Japan tech tree, as it would be impossible to get license of vehicle from Korean companies in those cases.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100803055926/http://www.khi.co.jp/aero/history/history_e.html
Kawasaki licensed produced all of their T-33s, they were built by Japan. The S-2 was built by the US, but it was still in use by Japan and given to the Koreans.
Oxy isn’t a dev and doesn’t have any actual decision making power.
Couldnt respond to your previous comment as unfortunately people flagged you.
However as mentioned before single individuals should not be something to justify this as many militaries during that time had many nationalities in their ranks.
You could essentially ask for Indian vehicles to be placed in Japan by this statement.
- Combine that with the fact that Japan who has a pacifist constitution’s only active participation in combat post-war was in the Korean war. The need for Japan to do minesweeping was seen as so necessary that the ban placed on IJN members in the JMSDF was lifted just so they could help.
You know how many times this has been discussed? Too many. The Japanese soldiers that volunteered served under US command and not Japanese Command, so they were essentially part of the US Navy
Link : https://apjjf.org/-Tessa-Morris-Suzuki/3803/article.pdf
- As for equipment usage you have all the leftover WW2 equipment
This again has been said in another thread, i’ll quote it again :
“The majority of the examples you used are either modified exported or licensed produced vehicles while what you describe is captured ordinance which imo is a bad excuse to get stuff.
By this logic Italy could get Australia because the Ausie used an captured Italian vehicle, this cycle can continue on what all nations in-game.”
- and examples such as using Kawasaki KH-4’s JMSDF S-2A Tracker, Kawasaki built T-33A.
You mentioned the Kawasaki KH-4 but never provided a source for that.
JMSDF S-2A wasn’t directly given to South Korea. The JMSDF S-2A (136595) was sold and given to state of Alaska as Tankers (Fire Bombers), the S-2A (N207AK) was deregistered and given South Korea in late 2010. Source linked under :
Now the source you linked for the T-33 is something new which could justify it but can you provide the full source so i could trace the serial numbers of these aircraft.
What you are giving is ‘Kawasaki produced in license’ not ‘those aircraft were transferred to ROKAF’. All aircrafts were given by USAF via Osan air base. Same for S-2 given by USN. None of them were ever produced by Japan, as early Korean government doesn’t want military connection with Japan.
There was conlfict around Dokdo between Korean militia and Japanese Coast Guard in 1954 and T-33 transfer was in 1955. And that time Korean president was one of head of refugee government fighting against Japan. You think it is sense in those situation Korea will get weapon from Japan?
Yeah Oxy isn’t in decision making power. But still, there are no possibility of Japan having Korean vehicle. Many people crying ‘no political’ but getting license from company is political, especially in Korea where companies has to rely on government and public opinion to get their work.
I mean it wasn’t just individuals though. It was essentially the entirety of the top brass during the formulation and most vital and important years of the ROK. There was consideration to ban service in the ROKA to all who served in the IJA, but their expertise was seen as critically needed. The India one doesn’t make sense as there wasn’t such a significant Japanese presence in there military. However the majority of India’s leadership was British trained and as such would make sense in a British TT.
I mean yeah. The Japanese leadership couldn’t wage war legally and had to jump through multiple loopholes to help Koreans in their time of need.
Except that the equipment was in use prior to the war’s end. You can’t just capture equipment from yourself. A more accurate comparison is like saying the Republic of Italy somehow captured a bunch
Kingdom of Italy’s equipment. Or saying Japan captured a bunch of Imperial Japanese equipment. No one says these things because it’s absurd. Much of the WW2 Japanese equipment kept around post war was done so because many of the soldiers were familiar with the use and maintenance of it.
SIPRI
fair
The T-33 were from Japanese stock and the only T-33s Japan had were only domestically produced by Kawasaki
Yes because the US specifically said that it happened.
Yes and we will never progress past early cold war and never get afterburning jets like the F-100 and MiG-19, just as Gaijin said in the past.
I remember people saying that the Tornado would never come into the game because it was impossible to get a license from Panvia.
It is different from Panavia situation. Panavia Gmbh is multinational company which are quite free from national politic. Not for Korean military companies.
Your archieve saids maiden flight was made in 1956 and ROKAF received from USAF in 1955. Did Kawasaki has time machine? XD