It’s not a bad idea, at all. The same as we have a prc and the “Province” Of Taiwan, the same could be applied here. It would, again, get some polemic… But it woukd work. Germany, China, italy, uk commonwealth… Mixed and “composite” Trees, they’re here, and they more or less work.
I approve this potential suggestion. 😁
+1 Can’t wait for Korean vehicles, especially the modern South Korean stuff :D
South Korean operated Israeli Plasan Sandcat firing SPIKE NLOS ATGMs. South Korea bought 4 of these in 2011, and all are in use with the South Korean Marine Corps. Could be a fun South Korean alternative to the North Korean M2018 at ~11.3.
K1E1 (120mm)
Last time I suggested the name “K1E1 (120mm)”, but I think I should correct my statement.
I found mentions of K1E1 meaning prototype K1A1 in various Korean forums in 2000s. (Before the well-known plans for the K1E1 tank with the 105mm KM68A1 became introduced.) In other words, the name K1E1 had already been used to refer to a prototype of the K1A1, regardless of the K1E1 with 105mm.
However, after searching again, there isn’t any official reference to prove that the tense of K1A1 was named K1E1. Perhaps, someone who was involved in the project said it somewhere and the name spread. But the problem is that we can’t prove this name.
The K1A1 was first unveiled at the Hyundai Precision Industries plant in April 1996, and was first displayed to the public at the Seoul Air Show in October 1996. However, media reports at the time introducing these two events referred to it as “K1A1”.
Therefore, I would like to propose a correction to the name “K1A1 (P)”, like “Ariete (P)”. It may not be stylish, but it is also a ‘safe’ name in that it is at least not wrong.
Meanwhile, you did a good job finding out the features of this vehicle. The K1A1 (P) and the production K1A1 can be distinguished by the commander’s sights are identical to those of the early K1, meaning that the commander optics do not have thermal view.
M60A1
This photo is unreliable for three reasons.
For this reason, the photo is believed to be either a simple composite photo or a temporary stencil on the USFK’s M60s operating with Korean Marines in joint ROK-US exercises such as Team Spirit.
These are in-game modification screens of K1 variations that I made for fun.
APDS: M392A2
APFSDS: M735, K270, K274, K274N, 105NG(little known information)
HEAT: KM456A1
HEP(HESH): M393 (maybe M393A2)
WP: M416
KM424
Is there a reason the KM424 remains? If South Korea had equipped the KM900 with RR like Italy, it would have been a good option, but unfortunately the KM424 is Jeep-like, not armored vehicle… :(
South Korean 90mm guns are capable of using their own 90mm APFSDS that manufactured by Poongsan.
S.Korea’s T-80U, unlike other T-80Us in-game, uses 3BM32 and 3UBK20 (9M119M). I don’t think it’s a big enough difference to make the BR different, but different ammo can definitely be a personality.
+1 I would love to see more variety of nations
i think north korea should be a chinese sub tree and south korea an american sub tree since a seperate TT would end up like Heli TTs and the Israel TT.
Some of these vehicles are really intresting and i would love to have them in WT but there are way too many copy-paste vehicles.
+1 as sub trees.
Even if there are same vehicles, the specifications are different due to the terrain factors of korean peninsula.
Ex, N.K tanks also equipped AA or AT missiles separately things like that.
The idea of adding these unique vehicles to “random” countries as a sub-tree is totally nonsense.
It’s juat waste of its potential and probably bring chaos to Korean WT community.
Even today there are vehicles being developed in S.K and
also N.K. Hoping those vehicles will be added into the game in the future, having its own TT is critical matter.
It would be kind of a waste to make them a sub trees especially with the high numbers of vehicles they have however let’s say they become sub trees, North Korea could fit in China or Russia but South Korea would be considered unnecessary in the US Tree that leaves the question of where to place it (France and Israel could technically work).
This is the exact reason an United Korean Tree is made and suggested, it may be like an Israeli style tree but we can easily change it into a full tree but lower tiers will simply be less interesting.
Could you highlight these many copy and paste vehicles? From what i have viewed and know there is less 20-25% of that and as a reminder copy n paste is considered imo as 65-100% identical anything lower then is either extensively modified or indigenously build.
Someone already asked this, but which ones?
For North Korea:
For South Korea:
This is a total of ~14 vehicles in a tree with 102 vehicles total, that’s 13.7% copy paste. Really not that bad, especially compared to some other trees in game.
The vast majority of vehicles are indigenous designs or modifications. (I guess you could also make the argument that the base Ch’onma is also copy-paste, but it would require a different model, and it was actually built in North Korea, and forms the basis for pretty much all other NK MBTs.)
Given, this would be the case only for ground, but I think it’s still fair to add them as united independent tree.
I always forget about air lol ;)
I know of a couple indigenous modifications to NK aircraft but unfortunately most of it is limited to new bombs or weapon rails. And there’s only 1-2 actual indigenous aircraft, which are really only known from some grainy images.
I thought it was South Korea only that had some unique mods and airframes?
Black Fox (RCWS-30)
From an old comment.
MiG-15 - Additional pylons (increased CAS)
Shenyang F-5/MiG-17 - Although it’s already in-game it was an North Korean modification.
J-6/MiG-19 - Additional pylons (increased CAS)
MiG-21PFM/BiS - Wired to carry the North Korea AGP-250 glide bomb.
Information is from the book - The Armed Forces of North Korea On The Path of Songun
(additional sources)
2 of Nortn Korea’s indigenous aircraft :
https://x.com/kpa_bot/status/1752847529564086452?s=46&t=ADFEmEoj2lml_XVCg7xJpQ
https://x.com/kpa_bot/status/1720805151277986031?s=46&t=ADFEmEoj2lml_XVCg7xJpQ
North Korea AGP-250 glide bomb :
https://x.com/kpa_bot/status/1758545075355713768?s=46&t=ADFEmEoj2lml_XVCg7xJpQ
Quite unremarkable to be honest, but better than nothing.
Shenyang F-5 is a joy to fly though, so I hope that would make it to a united tree if it were to be added.
8×8 122mm APC (8.3BR) is Mock-Up or Fake Vehicle
It is almost impossible to mount an unmanned turret in that form on a BTR-based armored vehicle
I’ve seen no evidence of this.
For as much as it’s mentioned online, North Korea very rarely, if ever, produces mock-ups of vehicles and tries to pass them off as real. Almost every vehicle seen in parades has also been seen in service, in training exercises, etc. including the M2020 MBT, the M2018 NLOS ATGM carrier, the M2020 8x8 ATGM APC, etc. I see no reason why such an underwhelming vehicle (122mm cannon taken from a 1970s-era SPG) would be faked, especially as it was shown alongisde those other vehicles.
By design, it’s almost impossible for it to actually work. There is a related analysis article here, so I recommend reading it.
it could work if they give up having hull storage.
considering m2020’s design is also kinda nonsense.
The context was fine, but the solution is highly doubtable.
You are ignoring the fact that both have no relations at all.
stop trolling if you don’t have any “brilliant idea”
