South Korean Ground Forces Tech Tree

Suggestions Ground
278

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
280

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
281

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.

2 Likes
282

Coming soon tm if the MoD’s recent words are anything to go by from as soon as next year maybe and as late as 2027. It would also include a hybrid electric powerpack and additional armor for a lot of vehicles, not just the Type 10.

Like you say, in the current meta. Type 81 and Type 11 would be better and Japan has a new SAM in the works

new sam
new sam1097×854 83.7 KB

Currently there is a 3 stage plan so that means 3 potential variants similar to the Ariete AMV. The final one would have better engine, suspension, armor, a smoothbore 105mm, a new APFSDS, and a programable HEAT shell.

Japanese defense industry is anything but stagnant and adding Korea isn’t going to swamp top tier with it’s addition.

2 Likes
284

Yep that’s exactly what I’ve been seeing to but I don’t think its super fair putting future vehicles into the equation against current variants, especially when I know a lot less about Korean equipment so I did not want to be unfair.

323

Since there are lot of potential for future ROK military vehicles,
Mixing up N.K and S.K vehicles as Full T.T would be the best.
It has unique features and designs that other nations don’t have.
United Korea ✔️✔️✔️

8 Likes
324

South Korea makes more sense to be a sub tree for Japan then Thailand. The tanks suggested in the Thai TT have no cohesion with how Japan is played. Lightly armoured, fast and manuvereability. The K1 tanks could definitely fill the 10.0 hole better then a mix match of Americans and Russian vehicles.

1 Like
325

Just to be sure, please tell me the reason. Some people are against it reflexively, while others are for it for no reason. The Japan-Korea issue is particularly serious…

4 Likes
326

I understand the issues that has occurred between the two nations and I shouldn’t be disrespectful because I’m not from those countries so I shouldn’t comment on them. But besides from that Gaijin doesn’t care about political opinions when positioning certain vehicles into nations. I’m solely talking about gameplay functionality.

Adding South Korea as a solo nation would just be as bad as the introduction of Israel where their line ups were a mess and missing large portions of a Tech Tree.

Having a combined NK & SK tree is also another proposition I’ve seen but where are you going to get info about NK tanks? and having a mix of Soviet and SK tanks would clash with creating a cohesive playstyle. Adding SK to a European or NATO country just seems out of place instead of being added to an Asian country.

So a combined Japan and South Korean TT would work well. It helps fill gaps in both of the Tech Trees

2 Likes
327

Gaijin ignore the political issues, yes.
But in this case, S.Korea is not related with Japanese military nor politically.
So there are absolutely no reason at all.

About the problem of N.Korean vehicles spec,
SInce most of the N.Korean vehicles are based on soviet vehicles, we could easily guess the specs.
Just like Gaijin does to most of the Modern MBTs.

10 Likes
328

Of course, it is possible to predict the performance of a vehicle based on the base vehicle. However, prediction alone is not enough. Information about North Korean weapons is completely unavailable due to national secrecy. As it stands, it is unlikely that North Korean vehicles will appear in the game, but I would like to see North Korean tanks fighting in the game.

329

Yup We don’t know about the modern N.Korean Weaponry.
But before 90’s are mostly exact copy of soviet vehicles.
So it would be really similar…

5 Likes
330

and to that degree, it’s not like we know a bunch about ANY of the modern vehicles yet we still add them. We know more about NK armour than about modern abrams armour yet that’s in game.

1 Like
331

If they add it to the game i would love to grind it after i finish Japan. I like the K1!

332

Of course in a different TT though 😉

6 Likes
333

I don’t think SK will even added at all. Not having enough vehicle to even slightly build a tech tree. Israel TT (tech tree) receive backlash when they were added (because of copy paste), same with Chinese TT for both being another copy paste and political between Taiwan and China players. The most likely outcome will be either SK and NK being a sub to respectively Japan and Chinese or none at all. Or SK can join Sweden if they really don’t want to be a sub Japan TT since one of their vehicle is in theirs. The game is not even political, it’s the player problem.

334

Since N.Korea and S.K are continuously developing many of new vehicles in real life, there no big problems in terms of copy and pasting. Each of them got its unique design and functions.

Since we the game is heading towards modern era, its no big deal, and Gaijin knows Korea got large player base, and they are one of the largest consumers.
So since K9 actually added to the game like merkava in US TT, it could happen soon.

Korea as a sub-tree will never gonna happen since one of the Gaijin employee in Korean community and Stona(mod here) made sure of it.
Not because its political problem, its because S.Korean vehicles are not even related with those countries.
Maybe the K1 MBT got influenced from US since they actually helped making it.

But Japan?
I really have no idea why they are claming S.Korea as a sub-tree even they know they are not related with Korean vehicles at all.
All i see till this day, what they say an “evidence” was just bunch of fake or non related documents.

Please stop this nonsense

10 Likes
335

Honestly speaking, SK TT as sub-tree in Japan TT is not make any sense in any point of view except convenience. Outsider such as me will look SK TT added to Japan TT make sense because both are East Asia country (similar to Sweden, Denmark, and Finnish) with Japan TT really lacking in high tier vehicle where such addition of a sub tree is needed. What I want is the same like you, any country with unique vehicle to have their own TT but that will be impossible. Adding SK TT to US TT will be near impossible since US TT have too many vehicle with more along the way. Adding SK and NK together does not warrant for a new tech tree without mass protest of another copy paste vehicle, specially with both country only owned US and Soviet equipment in earlier BR without modification. Adding SK to Japan is not favorable but is convenience. Though my opinion is not that all three, my opinion is that SK will be near impossible to be added without Gaijin facing massive backlash either from International Audience called them lazy and copy paste or political one from SK audience which can lead to boycott as per usual, which either one is player base problem. SK will be such an amazing TT to play with but with current situation, it is unlikely it will be added.

336

Outsider such as me will look SK TT added to Japan TT make sense because both are East Asia country (similar to Sweden, Denmark, and Finnish) with Japan TT really lacking in high tier vehicle where such addition of a sub tree is needed.

This does not give them an excuse. they can’t just take vehicles from other countries especially if they are not even related.
go play Armored Warfare then.

Adding SK and NK together does not warrant for a new tech tree without mass protest of another copy paste vehicle, specially with both country only owned US and Soviet equipment in earlier BR without modification.

So what? Are you going to protest if they release independent TT?
If people like Korean Vehicles, they’ll play this TT without any complaints.
People who complain about it want Korea as a Sub-tree of a random country.

Adding SK to Japan is not favorable but is convenience.

As I said like hundreds of times, it’s not favorable but impossible.
They are just a random country in terms of relation to Korean vehicles.
War Thunder is a historically accurate game, they don’t just add vehicles to TT unless they have relations.
but Japan and South Korea, are not related at all.

Though my opinion is not that all three, my opinion is that SK will be near impossible to be added without Gaijin facing massive backlash either from International Audience called them lazy and copy paste or political one from SK audience which can lead to boycott as per usual, which either one is player base problem.

If they just release Korea as an independent TT, there won’t be a boycott.
who will? butt-hurted weeaboo? lol there won’t be a problem, even Swedish TT has many copy-and-pasting vehicles but people ride it without any complaints right now.
people who did before were mostly because they felt Gaijin was lazy.
but S.K. on the other hand, there are lots of recently developed unique vehicles which is a lot more than Japanese nowadays.

SK will be such an amazing TT to play with but with current situation, it is unlikely it will be added.

If you really think so, leave this suggestion alone.
Gaijin will decide it not you.
At this point, it appears that you are only here to interfere with the Independent Korea TT
I mean you registered just 4 hours ago and the first thing you do is come to this suggestion, ignoring all those conversations we had, and oppose this suggestion? lol

7 Likes
337

It’s a open public forum, everyone can voice their opinion. I accept yours opinion as valid as should you accept mine. My account is not 4 hours ago, check my WT account under the same username. I don’t even know why it got reverted back to 0 but it is not such critical for me to report it to Gaijin support.

5 Likes