Mate, with all due respect.
They will not get real about this argument.
And you will face tons of rationalisation, such as…
“Magazine02 said it with disclaimers! Those are also subject to change, be delayed, or EVEN CANCELLED!”
Then they would want it to be cancelled.
And still would be complaining like… ‘South Korean subtree to Japan, and North Korean subtree to China’ because ‘Copy-paste is bad, and it will be another israel tech tree which could be boring…’"
Then, I am wondering if ‘a unified Korea tech tree is bad, because of the copy-paste problem’…
Then… ‘aren’t adding separate Korean sub-trees in two nations bad? because those are also copy-paste…’
I love this forum, and I love players who push the most controversial option with ill-constructed rationalisation…
And ‘that’ is one of the reasons why I am supporting this idea.
Imagine it… how awful their logic would be after official implementation of the Korean tech tree…
We even have precedents of some radical US main who wants Israel as a subtree of US TT, IIRC.
Of course, unique modifications from Korea look sick, too. ;)
Soviet tanks on steroid and such.
Honestly, i’ve seen a bunch of suggestions for “new tech trees” recently, and this might be a bit of a stretch too forward, it’s very unlikely we get any of those nations as a standalone tree, same for Greece, Yugoslavia and others.
I really do find funny how the same guy keeps coming here to say “no mom I don’t want it” then gets trashed, disappears for some time, then comes back and the cycle repeats itself
I’m going to do a deeper analysis later, but there is an interesting section on the turret that might house the ATGMs. It’s a much sleaker design.
I’m likely going to refrain from making yet another suggestion on this variant until we see it in action. Given that the 2025 variant of the Ch’onma-20 is also on display at this exhibition, I wonder whether both are expected to be produced, but they also don’t seem different enough to warrant two production lines. It’ll be interesting to see which variants are shown in the future during parades and exercises.
Side note, Ch’onma-20 is the official name for the 2024-2025 variants. This variant seems to be called Ch’onma-21 (the ‘21’ on the turret side is highly unlikely to be a coincidence), but that’s not confirmed yet.
That’s what I suspect. Same dual Bulsae-5s, just embedded properly in the turret this time. Almost certainly a better way of doing it than having it stick out awkwardly.
Could be a fire and forget box with a Bulse-4 missile or loitering munition.
Could also be a drone box if where seeing what where seeing.
Or nothing and North Korea just improve the armour ATGM would have been drone target number 01. Maybe they went to proving ground in Russia and asked them to throw everything at it.
Too small for the NLOS (Bulsae-4 is not the right designation, that refers to the upgraded laser beam riding 9M111), and we haven’t seen loitering munitions used yet, I would be very surprised if it wasn’t the Bulsae-5.
North Korea does have at least one Abrams, but it was donated by Russia recently.
The deserter story is interesting, although most reputable sources suggest it was either a prototype of the Ch’onma-2 / 20, or just someone unaware of tanks misidentifying it. Of course, it’s not implausible they received an Abrams from an allied Middle Eastern country, but there’s no way of knowing for sure.
That’s the grain of salt would be funny if it was some other western tank that they got there hands on but it was to embarrassing for the German or French to bring it up.
North Korea seems to be getting lots of samples from Russia I guess there engineering teams will have a fun taking all the ideas out of them.
They also get there hands on drones like the Geran though that could be a mix of Russia wanting to take advantage of North Korean industrial potential.
