United Korea Ground Forces Tech Tree

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.

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.


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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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


or like this


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

1 Like

Yeah, basically:

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.

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.


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


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.


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

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

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 :)

1 Like

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.

1 Like


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!


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.


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.



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.


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



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

1 Like

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.