United Korea Ground Forces Tech Tree

[ChieftainWarrior]

@SaabGripen

You can add the little-known K1E1. This is different from the commonly known K1E1 of the 21st century, which was the name of the prototype stage of the K1A1. (Similar to American naming convention.) In-game, this can be differentiated from the K1A1 by using a lower level of ammo than the K1A1. In this case, the K1E1 (120mm) and K1E1 (105mm) will be equivalent to the M1A1 and IPM1 of the current American TT.

Do you happen to have any sources for this? Sounds interesting!

@SaabGripen

KAFV 30A: Unlike the KAFV 30M, it is a manned turret and has different armament. Since there were two variations using 30mm, “30” was followed by “A” and “M” to differentiate them.

I’ve suggested it separately but I was unsure where it should go in the tree, considering the maximum pen I could find for it is ~51mm, and yet it’s fast and has a full stabiliser.

@SaabGripen

Ch’ŏnma with bustle: This is Ch’ŏnma with nothing special about it except for the bustle.

This is already in the tree as the Ch’ŏnma (1986), premium, BR 8.7.

@SaabGripen

Tarantula: Developed by Doosan DST and exported to Indonesia in 22 units, it is the first generation wheeled armored vehicle of the Doosan-Hanwha lineage. (Tarantula - Black Fox - Tigon)

Unless I’m missing something, this would be virtually identical to the KW1 FSV.
edit: nvm, seems to have APFSDS and be stabilised.

@SaabGripen

M1992 (AK-230)

Already in the tree, under the name M1989, BR 8.3. M1992 is an alternate name, but M1989 is more accurate.

@SaabGripen

What needs to be removed

Will probably remove these next time I update it, sure. I misread the page for the KM423 and found that it specifically is just the ammunition carrier vehicle, and the launcher vehicle only has 2 rounds. I see your point about them just being technicals.

@SaabGripen

K9’s BR should be reduced.

Remove “Rotem” from vehicle names. Like just as it is called “K2”, not “Hyundai Rotem K2”.

The official name of the wheeled SPAAG adopted by the Korean military is K-30W

Will do all this in the next update.

@SaabGripen

I really like North Korea’s local classifications and notations instead of the inaccurate classifications of the SK-US intelligence agencies (like Chonma-I/II/III/IV/V) and inaccurate notations (like “Chonma”) that are widespread on the Internet.

Thank you! I took care to use them when I made all my North Korean vehicle suggestions; it’s incredibly frustrating to see all the inaccurate names out there.

@SaabGripen

Have you considered organizing the lines of the tree into light tanks / South Korean MBT / North Korean MBT / TD / AA?

Briefly. I might experiment and post it here if it looks okay; I’ll probably keep the current layout however, unless the alternative is clearly better and more appealing.

@SaabGripen

The M48 and later South Korean tanks have different BR ranges depending on their ammunition. For 105mm APFSDS, there is a wide variety: M735, K270, K274, K274N, 105mm NG.

I will look into this, but my issue is that they’re unstabilised, and so sort of have a soft limit as to what BR they can go up to (before they just become frustrating to play). Currently I have them as being similar to the M48A2GA2, which I think works, but I could move one of them up/play around with their ammo choices a bit.

@SaabGripen

The “Jahaenghwasŭngchong 10hyŏng(Strela-10)” exists in models with 4 launch tubes and models with 8 launch tubes. It could be implemented like the BMP-1P upgrade of the BMP-1.

I assume you’re referring to the Pŏn’gae-3? (where’d you get that name?) In which case, I don’t believe the model with 4 launch tubes fires the modified Igla’s. North Korea operate the standard Strela-10, identical to the in-game version, with 4 launch tubes, and their modified version with different missiles as the 8 launch tubes version. I don’t know if that would work as a modification, as it’s a different model and missiles, and the two aren’t interchangeable.

Thanks for the detailed suggestions though! :)

[ChieftainWarrior]

@x_Shini_

KAPS does not exist it was cancelled a while ago

KAPS does exist and has been tested, it just never found it’s way onto the production vehicles. The XK2 with KAPS is a perfectly valid suggestion.

@x_Shini_

The K2NO was only a mock up as well and does not exist

If true, I believe this would still count as an unfinished prototype, and is thus still a valid suggestion. We have other vehicles with mock-up equipment in game.

[Owlcat_127]

And those are problems too. I just don’t want even more confusion added to SIM.

[dotSHINI]

@ChieftainWarrior

If true, I believe this would still count as an unfinished prototype, and is thus still a valid suggestion. We have other vehicles with mock-up equipment in game.

thats the specific reason the challenger 3 (TD) with eurothropy got denied the coerlian got removed, we do not have mock ups in the game

[ChieftainWarrior]

Yak-141? Chi To (Late)? Ho-Ri Prototype was a wooden model. M6A2E1 never had the planned extra armour mounted. etc.

Plus, the suggestion rules literally state unfinished prototypes are acceptable, provided all the parts were made and planned to be mounted in detail, as on the K2NO.

[dotSHINI]

@ChieftainWarrior

Yak-141?

that wasnt mock ups , dont know enough about the other ones, still i had multiple mock ups denied already as well for the same reason

[ChieftainWarrior]

[MAUSWAFFE]

@ChieftainWarrior

Ho-Ri Prototype was a wooden model

The wooden model I believe turned out to be fake. However it is instead known to have started prototype construction based on a Chi-Ri hull to unknown state of completion.

It is also unknown which of the three Ho-Ri designs was chosen, so the Ho-Ri Prototype has a 33% chance of being an actual unfinished prototype and 67% of being a paper vehicle.

I personally even lean towards it being one of the other two designs, considering Gaijin chose the only one with radically redesigned front plate compared to the Chi-Ri it was converted from.

@ChieftainWarrior

suggestion rules literally state unfinished prototypes are acceptable, provided all the parts were made and planned to be mounted in detail

I vaguely remember that for a vehicle to be counted as unfinished prototype any vehicle specific (so not otherwise used) part would have to have been made. Something like an engine, hull/turret parts or a weapon, provided it hasn’t been used foe anything else.

Then again they migh have changed those rules now considering I remember them from the old forum still.

[UnHolySausage]

@MAUSWAFFE

The wooden model I believe turned out to be fake. However it is instead known to have started prototype construction based on a Chi-Ri hull to unknown state of completion.

this is in fact true the ho ri was supossed to look more like this

Spoiler

or like this

Spoiler

supossedly having a thicker hull now but well it never went out of a paper since the wooden mockup wasnt made by the ones who made the project but from japanese historians i believe, but im not quite sure

[ChieftainWarrior]

@MAUSWAFFE

I vaguely remember that for a vehicle to be counted as unfinished prototype any vehicle specific (so not otherwise used) part would have to have been made. Something like an engine, hull/turret parts or a weapon, provided it hasn’t been used foe anything else.

Then again they migh have changed those rules now considering I remember them from the old forum still.

Yeah, basically:

@leroyonly

What constitutes a paper/fictional vehicle:

• Vehicle only existed in blueprint/sketch drawing form
• No major individual, vehicle-specific parts (i.e. guns, powerplants, etc.) of the vehicle were built
• Vehicle is a completely made up, unofficial design created by an individual

The vehicle you plan on suggesting meets the criteria above? In that case, it’s unfortunately a paper/fictional vehicle and as such won’t be accepted as a valid suggestion.

What constitutes an (unfinished) prototype:

• Vehicle was (partially) constructed
• Vehicle-specific parts (i.e. guns, powerplants, etc.) were built

[SaabGripen]

@ChieftainWarrior

Do you happen to have any sources for this? Sounds interesting!

I looked for information on this a long time ago for Wargame: Red Dragon. However, it may take some time because it is sleeping ‘somewhere (literally)’ in my old HDD.

@ChieftainWarrior

Unless I’m missing something, this would be virtually identical to the KW1 FSV.

They will play similar roles in the game, but technically there are two lines: Hyundai Rotem’s KW1/2 (K806/808) and Doosan-Hanwha’s Tarantula-Black Fox-Tigon.

I think Tarantula should be given priority because it did not sleep in the prototype stage and was actually mass produced and operated by the Indonesian Army… or why not have both in this tree?

Black Fox also has pictures of this, but I’m not suggesting it because I’m not sure if this turret is a mockup or actually works.

@ChieftainWarrior

I assume you’re referring to the Pŏn’gae-3? (where’d you get that name?) In which case, I don’t believe the model with 4 launch tubes fires the modified Igla’s. North Korea operate the standard Strela-10, identical to the in-game version, with 4 launch tubes, and their modified version with different missiles as the 8 launch tubes version. I don’t know if that would work as a modification, as it’s a different model and missiles, and the two aren’t interchangeable.

Spoiler

I cross-checked it through two sources.

First, I found this name on Jajusibo, an Internet news outlet written by pro-North Korea journalist Han Ho-seok. After visiting the 조선인민군 무장장비관Korean People’s Army Arms and Equipment Museum in Pyongyang, he wrote five chronicle articles, and the name “자행화승총Jahaenghwasŭngchong 10형10hyŏng” was mentioned in three of them. #1 #2 #3 #4 #5

Of course, as you can easily see, his claims are full of nonsense regarding the performance of North Korean weapons or the capabilities of the North Korean military. However, there is no reason for him to make up the ‘names’ of the weapons that he ‘wrote down’ during his visit to Phyŏngyang.

Second, I found this name on an article by Pastor Choi Jae-young that appeared in Minjog21, a pro-North Korea magazine. Like Han Ho-seok, he also visited the Korean People’s Army Arms and Equipment Museum in Pyongyang. He wrote “자행화승포Jahaenghwasŭngpho 10형10hyŏng”, a slightly different name than what Han used. It looks Choi confused the name with “고사포Kosapho (Anti Aircraft Gun)”.

*Edit: Remove duplicate sentences

Spoiler

Based on the two articles above, my conclusion is that “Pŏngae” is assumed to be the name of the missile, not the name of the entire system with vehicle. (Just like we don’t call North Korean ATGM-equipped vehicles “Pulsae”.)

In game, modifications like this are not unprecedented. The 2S6 gains radar and optics as well as missiles with the 2S6M1 upgrade.

[ChieftainWarrior]

@SaabGripen

I looked for information on this a long time ago for Wargame: Red Dragon. However, it may take some time because it is sleeping ‘somewhere (literally)’ in my old HDD.

No worries, I’ll have a look myself :)

@SaabGripen

I think Tarantula should be given priority because it did not sleep in the prototype stage and was actually mass produced and operated by the Indonesian Army… or why not have both in this tree?

I think both sounds good, especially if one is stabilised + has APFSDS. Will have a look at adding it.

@SaabGripen

Based on the two articles above, my conclusion is that “Pŏngae” is assumed to be the name of the missile, not the name of the entire system with vehicle. (Just like we don’t call North Korean ATGM-equipped vehicles “Pulsae”.)

Very interesting. I haven’t heard that name before but, like you said, I can’t imagine why they would make up the name. I was basing the name on a couple of online sources + ‘The Armed Forces of North Korea’, which briefly mentions it as being the name for the vehicle itself, strangely in its base imported form and in the modified form.
“…is the Soviet legacy Strela-10M, delivered to the KPA during the 1980s and designated the Pongae-3, despite never entering indigenous production. … this flexibility was shown … when the system was … fitted with two canisters each containing four of the DPRK’s Igla-derived MANPADs.”

I think it does make more sense that the missiles themselves are named Pŏngae, rather than the vehicle. Thanks for those articles :)

[stuka2689]

소형전술차 계열 특수용도/장비탑재차량│기아 특수차량 사이트

From the official site of the KIA it says It’s based on the K-151 model.

From the ADEX 2019, It says K-151 LTV(Raybolt).

K-153 is actually a name of Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle.

I can be wrong, though.

[ChieftainWarrior]

UPDATE

New Vehicles:

• M24: BR 3.7, Reserve
• 323 (14.5mm): BR 3.7
• Tarantula 6x6: BR 7.7
• M48A1: BR 7.7, Premium
• M60A1: BR 8.0, Premium
• K200 (TOW): BR 8.3
• M48A5K2: BR 8.7
• XK1: BR 10.0
• K1E1 (120): BR 10.7
• K21 (XC-8-105): BR 10.7

Renamed Vehicles:

• K-153C –> K-153C1
• K21 (120) –> K21 (XC-8-120)
• K21 (105) –> K21 (CT-CV 105HP)
• Rotem KW2 SPAA –> K30W Cheonho
• Rotem KW1 FSV –> KW1 FSV
• Rotem KW2 Jupiter –> KW2 Jupiter
• Rotem N-WAV –> N-WAV
• K1E1 –> K1E1 (105)

Moved Vehicles:

• K9: BR 8.0 –> 7.3
• KW1 FSV: BR 6.7 –> 7.7, made premium, Rank IV –> Rank V
• KAFV-30M: BR 7.7 –> 5.7, moved into SPAA line, Rank V –> Rank III
• KAFV-90: Branch 2 –> Branch 4, Rank IV –> Rank V

Removed Vehicles:

• KM423
• M2010-II 8x8 APC
• M26
• ROKIT (PV-1)
• ROKIT (PV-2)

Thanks to @SaabGripen and @T50B_BlackEagles for corrections and suggestions!

[Merkko]

I don’t know if it was discussed here before or not, but just like in situation with Tiran 6. South Korea also purchased T-72M1 for training exercises.

This addition might be unnecessary, as this vehicle would be just another copy & paste.

[Blue_Dabadee]

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. 😁

[WreckingAres283]

+1 Can’t wait for Korean vehicles, especially the modern South Korean stuff :D

SOUTH KOREA - K2 Black Panther

[ChieftainWarrior]

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.

[SaabGripen]

K1E1 (120mm)

Spoiler

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.

Spoiler

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

Spoiler

This photo is unreliable for three reasons.

• Firstly, like the M26, it is not mentioned in any official media(articles/reports/books/videos/etc.).
• Second, because the turret has “해병Marines” stenciled on it. The Marine Corps has lower priority than the Army in terms of logistics/supply. It is highly unlikely that the Marine Corps would have acquired and operated the M60 tank, which the Army does not have/is superior to the M48s the Army has. If South Korea had acquired the M60 during this time, it would have been deployed to the Capital Mechanized Division. However, The ROKMC, like some of the Army’s Home Guard divisions, was only able to begin retiring its M47s in 2006.
• Third, the existence of the M60 itself conflicts with the background context of K1 development. As the K1 is Korea’s first indigenous tank, its development history is well known. The development of the K1 began when the Jimmy Carter administration rejected the proposal for licensed production of the M60A1 requested by the Korean government.

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.

Spoiler

APDS: M392A2
APFSDS: M735, K270, K274, K274N, 105NG(little known information)
HEAT: KM456A1
HEP(HESH): M393 (maybe M393A2)
WP: M416

KM424

Spoiler

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.

Spoiler

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.

[TomW1014]

+1 I would love to see more variety of nations