South Korean Ground Forces Tech Tree

VIDAR is in the Swedish tree presented as a Norwegian premium.
Saying North Korean vehicles “go under the Chinese banner for now” is very false. All they have is the Shenyang F-5. There is no sub-tree, thus they aren’t currently part of anything.

You get the point I’m making, regardless of the details.
The closest thing to ROC in this regard is Palestine: neither are internationally recognized but both are “observer states” in the UN, not formal nations.

I didn’t intend to address anything, it is a new point.
Regardless, the choice has been made to include ROC in the Chinese tree (not PRC tree) and so it will continue to be, just as BDR and DDR share a tree.

1 Like

The problem with japanese players is that they need vehicles to fill a lineup, and at times some people are desperate and south korean vehicles are a good option but politically speaking they don’t fit (not that gaijin cares sadly) i’ve been supporting the thailand subtree as an option and south korea has so much vehicles that using it as a subtree it’s a waste of a good tech tree and honestly south korea has a lot of unique vehicles and would make me mad if they add it as a subtree

4 Likes

Thank you for confirming that currently North Korea is represented by one vehicle under the Chinese banner

Norwegian Spec K9 with upgrades like the ability to do direct fire that is sold from South Korea is not a South Korean representation of the vehicle.

Yeah i think its a dumb argument in regards to wether or not Taiwan is a nation or not. A seperate thing to what i was answering, and not one to argue without breaking forum TOS.

Yup, and i think thats fine. It is just an example to show that Gaijin as no issue with putting hostile nations next to one another in a tree.

Also per the flagging it is a PRC tree (aka China and not Taiwan) as they own the most vehicles in the tree which is how Gaijin goes about naming/flagging trees.

You implied multiple vehicles are present in the Chinese tree, thus is not the case.

That is just a laughable idea.
So the almost fully South Korean produced K9 with some Norwegian attachments means little for representing South Korea despite it being the Koreans themselves who kitted this vehicle for Norway? Please.

Sure, but you are comparing two sovereign and recognized states to a case where one is recognized and the other isn’t.
It’s not the same.

2 Likes

Yeah my bad for using plural, but as it stands thats where they are.

Oh i am not to say how much it means for South Koreans, but the vehicle we see in game is the Norwegian representation of their K9 Vidar and not a depiction of one South Korea uses.

Its the closest, it is not the same. I do not think UN representation is the end all and be all of statehood. Neither would China think so considering how long it took for them to get recognition. Other than that its pretty much identical in how the states were created except Taiwan now doesn’t claim lordship over China where as China does. Where as North and South Korea from my understanding does have some ““wants”” for unification.

Just to clarify:

Individual vehicles - whether they are premium or not - that are not one of sub-trees do NOT mean that this country will belong to this country in the future. Before the implement of the Israeli TT, Israel’s vehicles were spread across three countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. The closest example is Smin’s declaration that the implement of the Swiss Hunter F.58 does NOT mean a Swiss subtree.

Any mention of the ROC is useless other than to say ‘I can’t stand having technology from the west and technology from the east in one TT.’ Yes, they’re clearly divided states over ideological issues IRL, but that’s all.

What separated them was only political reasons, so they only deny the legitimacy of the other side’s government, but they share a sense of homogeneity as part of the same ethnic community. We need to look again at the names of PRC and ROC as follows:
PRC: People’s Republic of China
ROC: Republic of China
So we can easily catch that they both define themselves as “China”.

The PRC and ROC were treated exactly as the FRG(West Germany) and DDR(East Germany) are currently treated in the German TT. The only thing that is wrong now is that the ROC’s vehicles are using the wrong roundel like the vehicles used by the PRC.

8 Likes

This. ^

2 Likes

Would love to get South Korea in the game. Purely from a gameplay perspective, I’d love to have them in the Japan TT to increase the lineups there, but I know that is disagreeable for many reasons. Considering the history between the two nations alone, it is probably a bit offensive to suggest, but I still dream of having that combined strength! It would be quite good.

Thailand was allied to Japan in WWII, and yeah, the Ha-Go and early props, it’s something at least. Whereas Japan and South Korea have nothing to do with each other

7 Likes

*formally has China in their formal name.

And i dont like the wierd ethnic comment given what that usually justifies. Identity wise it hasn’t been the case since 1996.

That is what seperates every country/nation on earth by definition.

Man i just don’t get how much we have to play pretend and not just accept that Gaijin has put actively hostile nations together just because they have since WW1 had shared history in some way or another. And this means that trees like a Unified Korea tree or other with better lukewarm relations are perfectly possible. We can focus on fun and gameplay instead of wierdo politics and trying to satiate wierd requirement people arbitrarily set to have nation pairings.

Whether you like it or not, the idea of ‘nation’ has a powerful influence on people. Otherwise we would not be able to explain the cheers when a ‘Wall’ falls. Of course, this also includes the two divided Chinas and the two divided Koreas.

Over-interpreting the definition does not help the discussion. Are you going to claim that every country in the world is in a state of ‘civil war’?

And I will remind you again: The PRC and ROC were treated exactly as the FRG(West Germany) and DDR(East Germany) are currently treated in the German TT. There was no double standard, and of course there is no reason for double standards to apply to the two Koreas.

5 Likes

Come now, let’s leave political stuff behind and discuss more about tanks. In my opinion, as I’ve posted here before, I believe that South Korean Tree can even start at Rank I; Starting from M8, M24, M47, and gradually progressing to the famous and beloved stuff like K1 and K2. The early tiers might be a little bit dry, unless we count the equipment used by the UN armed forces during the Korean war. If so, it would make inti quite an interesting tree.

Starting from copy paste to end with handfull of original vehicles

Never claimed it didnt, but nations are not ethnicities. Wether one “belongs to” a nation is an identity, or Citizenship depending on what one refers to. Not ethnicity.

And again there is only one who has for decades laid claim to China. Any reading of Taiwanese foreign policy and current opinion polling reflects this.

Yes i will claim that basically every country in the world and their current political structures and borders in some way have their root in war or Colonialism. Some came to be through civil wars like Taiwan. This is not an overinterpreting of definition, this factually the reality of the world.

Never claimed there was a double standard. Ive just commented along the lines that claiming there is “2 chinas and therefore they are in the same tree” Is really dumb, and its more along the line of the British tree where countries have relatively recent historical connections with one another that means they are put in the same tree as one another. And because in this case the nations are hostile to one another it means lukewarm or other hostile nations can be paired together because Gajin clearly doesn’t care.

Yeah the tree could make for a interesting mix of coalition weaponry.

It is the late tree tho that would be the defining part of the tree tho. Unless there is some interesting lower tier stuff that is modifications of captured equipment or coalition supplied equipment.

Then let’s reframe the topic: how many years did both try to claim to be China as opposed to Taiwan renouncing such ideas? For the majority of the modern history? Guess it’s settled then.

How long did the KMT regime have the functional policy of “dont rock the boat”? Probably since the UN recognised China. And since polling started with Taiwan turning to democracy the overwhelming majority pointed to “status quo” with an increasing portion of “status quo and inch towards decleration of independance” With each year.

So unless there was a huge shift in opinion that is undocumented since before they started the polling, im gonna say the majority of modern history Taiwan has had a sentiment of “status quo”.(in other words, seperate)

So as far as modern history goes, thats a no. And im not gonna disregard the national determination of millions of people. Because we know what happens when you do that.

I didn’t disregard anything but you do you.

I mean if your take is the same as mine i guess you didn’t.

I do like ground what i say in statistics, this case being polling data on what the people of Taiwan believe.

Things are not so simple, but I don’t intend to get into that can of worms