South Korean Ground Forces Tech Tree

Suggestions Ground
398

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.

9 Likes
399

This. ^

2 Likes
400

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.

401

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

8 Likes
402

*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.

403

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.

6 Likes
404

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.

1 Like
405

Starting from copy paste to end with handfull of original vehicles

406

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.

407

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.

408

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.

409

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.

410

I didn’t disregard anything but you do you.

411

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.

413

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

414

I used ‘nation’ in this sentence to mean ethnicity, NOT state(country).

Unlike Western Europe, which experienced post-nationalism after two world wars, nationalism is the dominant ideology in Asia. Even in China, where there are several ethnic minorities, there is a Han Chinese-centered social structure. Korea? Koreans proudly introduce the phrase, “We are a single-ethnic nation.”

And this ‘ethnic’ connection sometimes acts stronger than ‘citizenship’. Can you understand the scene where a banquet is held in a Pan clan village in China because the Korean who became the new UN Secretary-General is a distant relative, or the Korean who apologizes to Americans because a Korean-American committed a gun crime in the United States? You may not understand, but it is reality.

‘Policy’ should not be misled by their basic idea. Even unification supporters within the ROC demand democratization of the PRC as a prerequisite for unification. The same goes for opinion polls. Because they cannot trust the current Chinese government. But above this is the constitution of the ROC.

自由地區與大陸地區間人民權利義務關係及其他事務之處理，得以法律為特別之規定。

Because the ROC constitution is, at least nominally, the constitution of all China, the amendments avoided any specific reference to the Taiwan area and instead used the geographically neutral term “Free Area of the Republic of China” to refer to all areas under ROC control.

They do not believe that the PRC and the ROC are separate, unrelated ‘countries’. Just as the PRC denies the ROC government, the ROC’s constitution denies the PRC’s government.

And this relationship appears equally in both Koreas.

No, you are over-interpreting the definition.

A ‘civil war’ is a conflict between two forces within a community over the sole legitimacy of that community. Therefore, for the sake of their own existence, they cannot acknowledge the other. Just as the two Chinas claim to be the only legitimate government of China, and the two Koreas claim to be the only legitimate government of Korea. This is what an ethnic community is like, accumulated over hundreds to thousands of years. But equating civil wars with ordinary wars of aggression would derail the topic.

That is why the confrontation between two Chinas or the two Koreas has a clearly different outcome from the confrontation between Japan and other Asian countries.

China is China. Korea is Korea. But it can’t be Japan or anything else.

Whether you like it or not

The difference is that their relationship is not simply ‘hostile’. This is a common mistake made by the U.S. State Department.

6 Likes
415

The constitution of Taiwan remains unchanged under the threat of invasion. The PRC sees it as a decleration of independence. We know because of what happened in 2006 when they wanted to change their formal name to Republic of Taiwan and change the land claimed in the constitution.

The policy of “dont rock the boat” continued due to these threats.

I could re-iterate the polling data on what Taiwanese people think, but clearly you dont care.

7 days ago the foreign minister for Taiwan said to a French newspaper that Taiwan needed to strenghten its security to avoid China considering invasion as a viable path forward. Given recent events the area ill leave that to the reader wether or not that is hostile.

416

In the end, it means ‘constitutional amendment was not achieved.’ Recall that opinion polls change as easily as the approval ratings for a particular political party. The constitution is codified, and changes require a referendum. (Unlike ‘opinion polls’, all Taiwanese voters participate.)

May or may not, the people of the ROC will one day agree to the position: “We are not China! We are Taiwan, just with Chinese immigrants!” However, the ROC’s constitution, which defines the ROC, does not, at least not yet. When that time comes, I will also be willing to respect the position that the people living in that land have decided for themselves. But at least for now, the most authoritative and reliable reference on this topic is the current ROC Constitution.

As I have explained several times so far, despite their identification with each other as an ethnic community, they do not recognize each other’s government. Therefore, they try to fend for themselves. There is no contradiction here, and that is why their relationship is not just ‘hostile’.

Just as much as the two Chinas, so do the two Koreas. If you were to stop someone on the street in Seoul and ask them, “Should North and South Korea unify?” they might say yes or no. But if you ask, “Are South Korea and North Korea two different nations - you need to think about why ‘nation’ is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘ethnicity’ - with no relation like China or Japan, etc?”, he or she will think you are talking nonsense. Even the armed forces of North and South Korea regard each other’s governments and armies as terrorist organizations or puppets, but teach each other’s people as beings that need to be ‘liberated’. Your worldview - a hivemind where relationships between governments are spread to all citizens - does not explain this.

You imagine that the ‘hostile’ between governments also persists between whole populations. Readers will decide which one best describes Asia, including China and Korea. Unfortunately, according to the number of likes, the parties qualified to judge this debate, the Chinese and Koreans, do not seem to support your argument.

6 Likes
417

If you ask the people of Taiwan today, they identify themselves as Taiwanese overwhelmingly as per polling/survey data available today. And that day has been since 1996.

It is interesting that you say this given ive looked to the opinion of people in Taiwan.

418

I think it would be interesting as a parallel tree, or the Japanese tree, or the Latin American tree.