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.
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
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.”
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
This was an additional order that happened in 1967.
ROKAF didn’t received T-33A in 1967. It was done in 1955, 1959, 1960, 1970, and finally 1979
also on those document ‘T-33A Attrition Aircraft for ROKAF’, it saids that aircrafts were 'excesses reporteed for return to U.S. Control. Yes. ‘return’. What was originally US made, and used by USAF, and then leased to Japan.
The document stated that this specifically happened.
I don’t know why this is so hard for you to grasp that Japan didn’t operate US built T-33. Even the first one produced was from Kawasaki which is rare even for license production. The relinquish to US control is because even under licensed production its still US intellectual property and, you can’t just do whatever you want with them. If you look at other CINCPAC docs it shows that when Korea wanted to sell licensed produced US weapons to other countries they still had to receive US permission to make those sales as the US still controls them.
It still doesn’t justify it though, as we speak of many nations in-game with same story it would honestly end up into a mess. Also the Indian National Army was 43000 man strong and equipped with Japan weapons, they even fought alongside them.
So we can agree that it should not be brought up again as it wouldn’t justify an an Korean Sub.
These equipment were in possession of Japan and they left it all scattered over East Asia, there was nobody who owned. Both North and South Korea then became owners of these equipment without Japan’s approval, putting it in the category of captured equipment.
So captured weapons isn’t justified reason as it again would justify Italy on getting Australian vehicles.
SIPRI is unreliable as it mentions that South Korea has received M10s and M18s when clearly that isn’t true.
But those Indian soldiers were trained in institutions set up by the British even if they defected. Also that army was a separate entity from the Indian army. This is the actual ROKA that is still around today. There is a clear difference between fighting on someones side and having the core institutions shaped by a certain country. India already had institutions established by the British prior to the Japanese arriving. The ROK was a fresh country with no established doctrine or institutions in place that were built by Imperial Japanese officers.
No, why? The Japanese offered up soldiers to help in the Korean war effort. It’s not like the US went in and abducted a bunch of Japanese to fight. The Japanese could refuse if they wanted to and ended up doing so when the US put the Japanese sailors into unnecessary risks.
The units who used the equipment during WW2 just continued to use them afterwards. There are examples of Korean units using the equipment still during WW2 against the soviets even outside of Japanese command. There was no situation where this equipment sat in purgatory. You are more equating it to when the Chinese captured the equipment post war as they did just come across it afterwards.
Personally I wouldn’t mind seeing South Korea by itself. It has a well equipped military, at least during the Cold War to modern day, and could probably stand on its own. North Korea (ideally) would go to China, as it already pairs well with most of the Eastern Bloc-style equipment that is there (barring the ROC stuff). A Unified Korea tree, while an interesting prospect, would likely just end up as another “all the vehicles in one tree” tree, removing the need/desire to play a different nation for a different experience because your tree already has it. It would also ruin what little asymmetry is left in the game, and asymmetry is a big selling point at least to me.
As for the Japan subtree debate, I would prefer to see SK there purely because Japan as-is is struggling on the “fleshed out tree” front. However, I understand the inherent political and social issues behind that whole conundrum and while it would be a good choice for gameplay and game progression, it probably wouldn’t sit well with a lot of players of either nation. I wouldn’t be surprised if Gaijin ignored it though, one way or the other.
What about a Korean tech tree with vehicles from both North and South Korea starting with the Japanese vehicles captured and used after WW2 ended?
If by starting with Japanese vehicles, you mean like grinding Israel where you need to start with US or UK vehicles to start the TT then that wouldn’t sit over well with the community. Israel is incredibly unpopular because it has a bunch of padding to try and get it’s numbers up to somewhat similar levels of other TTs. Low player counts lead to low investment from Gaijin which means just cpp to fill the ranks with ROKM M48 variants (see Magachs).
If you are talking about a UNK TT where the first 3 ranks are filled out with Japanese equipment from WW2 then you run into the China TT problem where no one wants to grind out the same vehicles they grinded before and especially not Japanese low ranks. This equals low player numbers and a repeat above. Most players who don’t care about the nuances of east asian politics will just think that if they are already grinding low tier Japanese vehicles to play the TT then why not just add it as a Japan sub-tree.
Also the biggest problem with a UNK TT is the air tree which NK planes are at best soviet planes with maybe a domestic bomb and the SK side is mostly US vehicles that have anywhere from minor cosmetic changes to some decent weapons changes, but barely single digit fully domestic designs.
is this a joke? 6 vehicles to reach top tier?
🤔
Should be combined with NK or made a subtree for Japan imo
I feel like south korea should be combined with turkey with how their vehicles feel like sidegrades to each other like altay being a manually loaded heavier vehicle and k2 being a autoloaded lighter mbt
About the T-33A.
I couldn’t find any serial numbers in the source you provided so i have searched around to find an transfer of T-33As in 1967. As an result of my search i havent found anything about an transfer of 12+ T-33A in 1967 to South Korea, however i did stumble upon 4 RoKAF T-33As which were previously owned by the JASDF but these 4 aircraft were first returned to the US and the US gave it to RoKAF. So we got an somewhat similar story as the S-2A.
I’ll continue on searching but if no further information can be found then i’ll comment that, case you find the serial number let me know.
Here are my sources :
Spottingmode.com - Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star
https://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1954.html
Forgotten Jets (& Props) - A Warbirds Resource Group Site
Serial number :
Reg. 51-5640 JASDF - Reg. 54-1552 US(AF)
Reg. 51-5641 JASDF - Reg. 54-1554 US(AF)
Reg. 51-5693 JASDF - Reg. 51-1593 US(AF)
Reg. 51-5696 JASDF - Reg. 51-1596 US(AF)
The Ground Tree doesn’t consist of any Japanese vehicles for now because there isn’t much detail on what type of tanks the USSR gave to North Korea. However the Air Tree does consist of some Japanese Aircraft which was operated by North Korea mainly.
So if you want Korea per se in the Japanese Tree you essentially asking for North Korea which received the most amount of captured Japanese weapons from China and USSR.
But again (imho) captured weapons should not be a justification even if Koreans used it in WW2 it was in possession of the IJA and after WW2 it was in possession (confiscated/captured) of the US and USSR which eventually gave it to both Korea’s.
The majority of the Air Tree are foreign aircraft but they have at least undergone extensive modifications (airframe upgrade, diff. weapons, CMD upgrade, diff. Engine, weapon system upgrade or diff. Radar) making them performance wise different from the original aircraft, some good example are the Shenyang F5, MiG-21Bis/PFM, F-4E and F-15K.
The United Korean Air Tree (Israeli style) would have a total of 57 aircraft (including premium). 40-45% of these are Copy n Paste and 55-60% are unique or uniquely modified, an full air tree would have 70+ aircraft and would have the same percentage as above but the lower tiers are lacking a bit. So i would agree that the Air Tree isn’t that impressive.
However the United Korean Tree is being looked at for their Ground vehicles which most players are interested in, the United Korean Tree (Israeli style) would bring 72+ vehicles with 75% of it being interesting and unique (including uniquely modified) stuff. A full ground tree would have 90+ vehicles with it still remaining 75% but rank I lacks a bit.
T-62 (Looks like Israeli) in service with South Korea
It’s Tiran 6 yes. Few were imported to South Korea with captured T-72M1 from Israel.
