South Korean Ground Forces Tech Tree

Suggestions Ground
257

About the T-33A.

I couldn’t find any serial numbers in the source you provided so i have searched around to find an transfer of T-33As in 1967. As an result of my search i havent found anything about an transfer of 12+ T-33A in 1967 to South Korea, however i did stumble upon 4 RoKAF T-33As which were previously owned by the JASDF but these 4 aircraft were first returned to the US and the US gave it to RoKAF. So we got an somewhat similar story as the S-2A.

I’ll continue on searching but if no further information can be found then i’ll comment that, case you find the serial number let me know.

Here are my sources :

Spottingmode.com - Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star

https://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1954.html

Forgotten Jets (& Props) - A Warbirds Resource Group Site

Serial number :

Reg. 51-5640 JASDF - Reg. 54-1552 US(AF)

Reg. 51-5641 JASDF - Reg. 54-1554 US(AF)

Reg. 51-5693 JASDF - Reg. 51-1593 US(AF)

Reg. 51-5696 JASDF - Reg. 51-1596 US(AF)

  • 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.

The Ground Tree doesn’t consist of any Japanese vehicles for now because there isn’t much detail on what type of tanks the USSR gave to North Korea. However the Air Tree does consist of some Japanese Aircraft which was operated by North Korea mainly.

So if you want Korea per se in the Japanese Tree you essentially asking for North Korea which received the most amount of captured Japanese weapons from China and USSR.

But again (imho) captured weapons should not be a justification even if Koreans used it in WW2 it was in possession of the IJA and after WW2 it was in possession (confiscated/captured) of the US and USSR which eventually gave it to both Korea’s.

  • 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.

The majority of the Air Tree are foreign aircraft but they have at least undergone extensive modifications (airframe upgrade, diff. weapons, CMD upgrade, diff. Engine, weapon system upgrade or diff. Radar) making them performance wise different from the original aircraft, some good example are the Shenyang F5, MiG-21Bis/PFM, F-4E and F-15K.

The United Korean Air Tree (Israeli style) would have a total of 57 aircraft (including premium). 40-45% of these are Copy n Paste and 55-60% are unique or uniquely modified, an full air tree would have 70+ aircraft and would have the same percentage as above but the lower tiers are lacking a bit. So i would agree that the Air Tree isn’t that impressive.

However the United Korean Tree is being looked at for their Ground vehicles which most players are interested in, the United Korean Tree (Israeli style) would bring 72+ vehicles with 75% of it being interesting and unique (including uniquely modified) stuff. A full ground tree would have 90+ vehicles with it still remaining 75% but rank I lacks a bit.

3 Likes
258

T-62 (Looks like Israeli) in service with South Korea

image

3 Likes
259

It’s Tiran 6 yes. Few were imported to South Korea with captured T-72M1 from Israel.

image

4 Likes
260

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

5 Likes
261

Main shells of late K1 and serial K2:

image

262

Japan sub tree is best way i feel

4 Likes
263

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
264

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

1 Like
265
1 Like
267

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.

3 Likes
268
  • 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 :

7 Likes
269

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

6 Likes
270

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?

271

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
272

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
273

much less so

5 Likes
274

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.

3 Likes
275

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
276

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.

10 Likes
277

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!”

3 Likes