I mean the ROK military was almost entirely built on Japanese institutions more-so than they ever were on US institutions. Pretty much all of the top leadership of the ROKA during and for a significant time after were educated in Imperial Japanese military institutions and served some role in the IJA.
Lee Hyung-geun (IJA field artillery captain ROK CCCS which was the highest military position in all of the ROK)
Chung Il-kwon (IJA cavalry officer ROK CCCS)
Paik Sun-yup (LT Manchuria later ROK CCCS then president)
Yu Jae-hyung (Captain IJA ROKA CCCS)
Kim Jong-oh (2nd LT IJA ROKA CCCS)
5 of the 6 of the highest military position in the ROKA Chairman of the Combined Chiefs of Staff to ever be appointed were ex-IJA volunteers
Now Commander of the ROKA
Won Yong-deok (Manchuria officer)
Lee-Eung-jun (Maj Gen of the IJA)
2 of the 3 Commanders of the Army ever appointed were ex-IJA volunteers
Now Chief of Staff of the army
Lee Eung-jun (repeat of above but as CoSA)
Chae Byong-duk (Major IJA)
Shin Tae-young (LT Gen IJA)
Seon-yeop Baek (Manchrian officer)
Chung Il-kwon (repeat as CoSA)
Lee Jong-chan (Major IJA)
Paik Sun-yup (Repeat as CoSA)
Chung Il-kwon (Repeat as CoSA)
Lee Hyung-geun (Repeat as CoSA)
Song Yo-Chan (IJA enlisted)
Jang Do-young (LT IJA )
Choi Young-hee (2nd LT IJA)
Choi Gyong-rok (IJA reserve academy)
The first 13 Chief of staff of the ROKA were all volunteers of the IJA and this trend only stopped when the ones after were too young to serve during the Japanese occupation.
It was so ingrained on both sides of the 38th that the North Koreans had to do an ideological purge on Imperial Japanese sympathizers through reeducation rather than execution because they couldn’t find the same talent elsewhere. https://www.dailynk.com/북한공군-일본군-출신이-창설-주도/
Combine that with the fact that Japan who has a pacifist constitution’s only active participation in combat post-war was in the Korean war. The need for Japan to do minesweeping was seen as so necessary that the ban placed on IJN members in the JMSDF was lifted just so they could help.
As for equipment usage you have all the leftover WW2 equipment and examples such as using Kawasaki KH-4’s JMSDF S-2A Tracker, Kawasaki built T-33A.
Doesn’t this apply to most sub-trees? What does the KF41, BTR-80A, or T-72 have to do with Italy. What does a PT-76, Mig-21, or Charioteer have to do with Sweden. I would actually argue that South Korean vehicles belong more in Japan than those other 2 examples as they both operated a lot of similar or identical US tech.
I’m sorry, but saying Japan is a healthy TT while the US of all tech trees is lacking content is pretty hilarious. The potential domestic content for the US not in-game atm is probably 5x larger than the current Japanese TT. If the US even got their potential vehicles they could add, then they could easy have over 1000 vehicles.
Why ask for an explanation if you guys don’t want to hear it? You can’t say that there is 0 connection when it historically exists even if it doesn’t match your worldview.
T-33A is from Lockheed, not from Kawasaki. Those T-33A were once given to JASDF by USAF and then given again to ROKAF, not what JASDF gives their Kawasaki T-33A. Same as S-2 tracker which were directly imported from USAF not by JMSDF.
Of course as Oxy saids there will be no Korea as sub tree for Japan, but korean equipment is still as a US vehicle, as Merkava was event vehicle of US and then got independent.
Never tink Korean vehicles as Japan tech tree, as it would be impossible to get license of vehicle from Korean companies in those cases.
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.
Combine that with the fact that Japan who has a pacifist constitution’s only active participation in combat post-war was in the Korean war. The need for Japan to do minesweeping was seen as so necessary that the ban placed on IJN members in the JMSDF was lifted just so they could help.
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
As for equipment usage you have all the leftover WW2 equipment
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.”
and examples such as using Kawasaki KH-4’s JMSDF S-2A Tracker, Kawasaki built T-33A.
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
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.
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.
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
