South Korean Ground Forces Tech Tree

T-72s in the ROK Army Armor School are from Czechoslovakia, not Israel, Israel only gave the Tiran-6.

5 Likes

Main shells of late K1 and serial K2:

image

Japan sub tree is best way i feel

4 Likes

France and Israel got more claim on South Korea then Japan, so if some want South Korea now then Israel is an logical place (not much vehicles).

However an Unified Korean Tree is more enjoyable.

8 Likes

If by best way you mean literally worst way, then you’d be correct.

1 Like
1 Like

I’d like to see these vehicles, but I feel that it should be a Japanese Subtree, with less of the exported stuff (like the M56). Part of the reason Israel got it’s own tree is because it has french, american, soviet, and british vehicles, making it hard to fit into another nations. However, I think it would do well in Japan, because as of now there isn’t many vehicles that can be added to the Japanese tree, and adding these could help that. Same reason why they added the finnish tree, as Sweden was running out of addable vehicles.
Lastly, the air tree would be completely copy-paste of US vehicles besides the KAI T-50 (and I guess the KA-27), making it a quite boring tree with a SINGLE unique aircraft. In contrast stuff like the finnish tree and israeli tree have some more “unique” or at least interesting modifications.

2 Likes
  • I’d like to see these vehicles, but I feel that it should be a Japanese Subtree, with less of the exported stuff (like the M56).

Wouldn’t make sense in Japan. It would make more sense in France, Israel or an United Korean Tree.

  • Part of the reason Israel got it’s own tree is because it has french, american, soviet, and british vehicles, making it hard to fit into another nations.

I doubt that’s the reason Israel got it own tree. Finland, South Africa and Hungary consist of many foreign vehicles from different nations yet they don’t have their own tree.

  • However, I think it would do well in Japan, because as of now there isn’t many vehicles that can be added to the Japanese tree, and adding these could help that. Same reason why they added the finnish tree, as Sweden was running out of addable vehicles.

Sweden at least received a nation which it has an military connection to and joint developed some vehicles with.

However according to you an lack of vehicles justifies adding an random country to Japan which it has no connection to? If that’s the case why ask for South Korea, when you can ask for any other random country and avoid an outrage?

  • Lastly, the air tree would be completely copy-paste of US vehicles besides the KAI T-50 (and I guess the KA-27), making it a quite boring tree with a SINGLE unique aircraft. In contrast stuff like the finnish tree and israeli tree have some more “unique” or at least interesting modifications.

South Korea has exactly done the same thing what Israel did……They extensively modified some aircraft making them Unique just like some Israel aircraft and also to clarify “uniquely modified” in my book are aircraft that aren’t identical to it’s original design after their upgrade (airframe upgrades, diff. weapons, CMD upgrades, diff. Engine, weapon system upgrades or diff. Radar).

Here is an link of the United Korea Aviation Tree which provide you with some details on the modification done by South Korea :

6 Likes

You seem to be about as adamant for an independent Korean tree as I am for V4, Switzerland and Yugoslavia.
Respect xd

6 Likes

Except the US fought an entire war for SK, upholds the DMZ with SK, and is its largest strategic ally, did you forget about that?

Yes as a subtree of japan. It’s politically tenuous, but is putting modern day India, South Africa, and Canadian vehicles under the UK TT any less so?

4 Likes

Well, imo, given that the Thai sub-tree for Japan were passed to devs and that Thai playerbase has no problem with it (cuz they have significant political and historical connections to back it up), I think the Korean tree could stand on its own.

10 Likes

much less so

4 Likes

As a Canadian, the UK is the best place for our stuff(an independent Tree more so). We are still very friendly and still have close ties.


I don’t know where you got the idea Canada has a problem with the UK but we don’t.

The nation Canada has a problem with taking our stuff is the US. I can give you a list of why but this isn’t the topic for that.


Ah well, I said something here so I’ll give my opinion on the tree. I’d like Korea to come someday but not until more nations that can start in WWII come as we still have plenty as I’m not a fan of the Isreal-style trees this would need to be.

2 Likes

The issue with Japan subtrees is you either pick something for gameplay that maybe doesn’t follow historical ties much (South Korea) or something that represents historical ties but may not be best for gameplay (Thailand). Granted South Korea and Japan are improving their relationship in the modern day but it still a far cry from something like the UK and Canada. In the Cold War, the only reason the two countries would work together is if the US forced them to, if the Cold War went hot or a regional hotspot or something like that.

The problem, is that they have a history of completely ignoring historical ties, most prominently with China being both China’s in one even though they are constantly about to murder each other.
While they (South Korea) would fit in the US tree, the US tree doesn’t need a subtree. It is one of the most fleshed out trees in the game and has many many options to choose from going forward. A subtree is entirely unnecessary and would just bloat the already bloated tree.
South Korea in France seems like an odd choice to me, but I don’t know their connections very well/at all so I can’t really comment on that, same for Israel. But IMO France would be better with a Swiss subtree (or similar, maybe DeNeLux?), and Israel would probably be better with the multitude of countries that they have made/improved vehicles for, such as Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and others.
I’ve already talked about a Unified Korea Tree before, but I will say it one more time here. I don’t like having a tree like that incorporates both sides of the Iron Curtain, and ruins even perceived asymmetry, because eventually fighting the vehicle you are in over and over again is stale. This is one of the reasons I think a lot of people are not huge fans of especially the early Chinese tree. Asymmetry is one of the last things this game does good, and for that reason I think North Korea should go to China (close ties/weapons exports/etc.) and South Korea should either be a subtree or by itself.

So as much as I know people hate it, I think the best choice for South Korea if added right now is to be a Japanese subtree. It could “lead the charge” into making Japan into a more competitive nation with everything it has to add, and the similarity in vehicles (especially air) would mean it would fit extremely well into the current Japanese playstyle. It would also keep the game from becoming flooded by separate trees, as IMO, we are reaching the practical limit for how many separate trees can be in the game. Eventually, having too many trees will just make the game more and more difficult to balance because of the sheer number of vehicles, and unless there is game restructuring in some capacity I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon.

8 Likes

Thailand is actually really good for Japan. Not only would a Thai subtree add interesting vehicles (mostly foreign modifications but also some completely unique vehicles), but the vehicles they have fill the gaps in the Japanese tree very well. They operate many support vehicles Japan is missing as well as CAS.

The only thing they were lacking gameplay wise was SAM, with their most powerful systems still not filling the role of top SAM. However with the Type 81 C being added and its ARH missiles planned for the future, as well as an even more powerful Type 11 in the very distant future Japan is set for that already and needs the subtree mostly to add improved lineups and CAS, which Thailand provides.

Since many Koreans seem to not like this idea and they are a large part of the target audience for Korean Premiums it might be better to put them elsewhere, be it their own tree or a subtree of another nation. In this case it’s not about being political, but about doing what players want to pay for.

I personally wouldn’t mind if a Korean subtree was added since I mainly play Japan, but I’d prefer a Thai subtree if I had the choice.

9 Likes

While I disagree with having it as a subtree of Japan due to it basically turning top tier into South Korea, due to them having developed more vehicles than even Japan in the modern day, I think you have probably the most solid reasoning of anyone in the thread as to why it could be as a Japanese subtree and I definitely appreciate the more detailed reasoning as opposed to “hurr durr it’s near japan and japan needs more vehicles!”

2 Likes

Mostly my problem with Thailand is the same that I mentioned later when talking about Unified Korea. While the Stingray and M48/60 modernizations would fit really well, the T-84 and VT-4 would IMO be another negative step towards asymmetry, in the sense that these vehicles have completely different playstyles and come from “different sides” with different design philosophies. Although there is a case to be made for them, because they are different from the standard vehicles of their type, it would still be fundamentally opposite vehicles together. Yes, they would enhance top tier, but they would, in my opinion, lessen the asymmetry that the game does so well, and in the end it would be kind of like if the M1A2T ever gets added to the Chinese tree: a top tier vehicle that is used by the country but seems out-of-place when compared to the other vehicles it is in lineups with or will be facing consistently.
The aircraft are a different story, mostly because they’re basically all American (besides Gripen), so I don’t really feel the need to touch on them given the “American” presence in the Japanese air tree already.

I still think that South Korea is the better choice for gameplay because besides the potential T-80UK premium/squad vehicle (since those are basically exempt from this line of thinking, bc you have to pay for it) basically all the equipment is of “Western” design. Thailand has this asymmetry problem that South Korea doesn’t, which isn’t exactly a negative thing because it would be something new, but it isn’t exactly a positive thing either, and it would be doing a disservice to Thailand if some of their main modern tanks were stuck as premium for that reason.

1 Like

I’m finding we just agree on most things about the situation. I don’t understand why most people think that having two countries that:

  • Primarily both operate similar US equipment (often the same model) for a bulk of their fighting force and most of their aircraft.
  • Both use technologically advanced, autoloaded 120mm MBTs with strong frontal armor/ steel side armor, hydro suspension.
  • Both use large caliber IFVs of a similar deployment style and weight class
  • Both have almost identical units structured around 8x8 wheeled vehicle family designed to be rapidly deployable against incursions into their territories before MBTs arrive both with a brand new variant mounting a 30mm and a large caliber FSV variant.

Yet somehow adding a bunch of Chinese and Ukrainian vehicles into the Japanese TT makes more sense and creates a more coherent TT than:
F-15J/F-15K
KF-16/F-2
AH-64DJP/AH-64E
AH-1S/AH-1S
UH-60/UH-60
OH-6/MD-500
F-86F/F-86F
F-86D/F-86D
T-33/T-33
T-6/T-6
F-4E/F-4E
or
Type 90/K1A1
Type 10/K2
K116 106mm/Type 73 106mm
K116 TOW/Type 73 Type 87
K30/Type 87
K21/Type 89
M8/M8
M36/M36
M4A3/M4A3
M47/M47
N-WAV 30mm/ ICV 30mm
N-WAV 120mm/ Type 16
Type 75/K-55
Type 99/K9
M270/M270
Kia LTV Raybolt/LAV Type 01
B-78/KAFV 25
The geographically similar conditions and similar threats create similar vehicles. But apparently people want to see
Type 90/VT-4
Type 10/Oplot-T
Stingray/Type 16
BTR-3/ICV
VN-1/RCV
or
JAS-39/F-15
L-39/T-2
Alpha Jet/F-1
A-7E/F-4E

I personally have nothing wrong with the Thai TT if it’s the only option, but it just ruins the coherency of a Japanese TT.

4 Likes

I disagree with this, at least for ground forces. Korea and Japan could work well together at top tier without either dominating. Let’s say Korea adds three top tiers in the form of:

MBT:
XK2, K2, and K2 PIP would be the most suitable end-of-the-line MBTs. As far as we know, the only current equivalent to the K2 PIP would be the Type 10 48-ton (which we have not seen). For the regular K2, we have the Type 10, and for the XK2, we have the TKX. At least in this regard, they can be rather equal.

SPAA:
Japan does not have a direct equivalent to the K-SAM or K30 Biho, but it could have a side grade via the Type 11 or Type 81 ARH missiles. Considering how SACLOS missiles are working right now, the Type 81 (C) is a better SPAA against planes than the VT-1, but VT-1s are much better at shooting down planes/helicopters at high ranges or in conditions where contrast lock might fail.

Light Tanks:
For light tanks, Japan would not have a lot of options for equivalents, but for the K151, the MMPM/Type 96 could work. I doubt there will be a good equivalent for the K21 (120mm) unless Japan is given a new Type 16 by Gaijian with better APFSDS, which I doubt will happen anytime soon unless its a entirely new version.


1 Like