i know so solution to japan hate, china gets both north and south
3 Likes
How is that a solution? You essentially repeating the same thing that has been mentioned about Japan (aside from historical issues), China has no military connection to South Korea so how actually would it make sense for S.Korea to be there?
The United Korean would be fine solution on bringing both Korea’s to game simultaneously.
According to the book it was intended as a ground attack craft and was equipped with a radar and bombsight but it’s not known what weapons or payload wad used. Unfortunately the aircraft didn’t meet the North Koreans expectations (small and underwhelming performance), so the Aircraft probably became a trainer but got quickly faced out as it deemed unsatisfactory.
5 Likes
south korea had military relations long time ago(pre-japenese colonization), just for your info
Anyways i think south korea could be put in either USA or Chinese TT(chinese because it has less vehicles than japan and also due to geography)
china has 59 playable ground vehicles without including the ones that were removed/event or premiums
japan has 53 playable ground tech tree vehicles not including premiums or event ones
if you want to make koreans even more mad yes put it in the chinese tech tree they hate china probably as much or even more than they dot with japan lol just cuz of geography dosent make sense whatsoever
also pre japanese colonization duuude this was so much time ago it shouldnt even be considered in the first place, we are talking the 1800’s do you realize how much time ago this was?
1 Like
Is that so, when was South Korea established because im certain Korea was one so you essentially talking for 2 countries.
Also for your info when Japan annexed Korea it disbanded the Korean army and governed over Korea, so how can you claim that it’s a military relationship when you are not even in control of your own army?
However if colonization is you argument then i can essentially ask for Vietnam to be in France or Canada in France.
Again the US is a logical option but unnecessary as they have a wide variety of options to fill their needs.
Same with China. They tons of vehicles that can be added to the Tree before their would be actual need for a subtree, it just up to Gaijin to add them and again China has no military connection to South Korea making it illogical for them to be in China (unless it’s North Korea).
3 Likes
Ho-Ri was a wooden model but wasn’t there some reports that there were possible models but then it’s probably very obscured.
There were probably models since in some archives it states they did run out of the factory, but well inmediately américa invaded Japan and well most of japanese tanks were scrapped
We never invaded. What? also Iwo Jima and Okinawa are nowhere near close enough to be connected to the mainland of Japan.
Yeah well not really invaded but went there to make a double check and scrapped most of japanese tanks to re use the scrapped material
One their entire economy was in shambles, and 2 they signed the conditions that would limit what they would have available for the time being, we did the same thing in Germany although over there it was a bit more restrictive.
Firstly, I would love to see all these vehicles in game. I think it would be really cool driving a north korean tank.
However, i would still prefer this to be sub trees for several reasons:
- 10 tech trees are simply a way too good number(really dumb reason but whatever)
- For simulator battles this would be real awkward(North and south korea together)
- Something tells me this would either be overpowered or underpowered
1 Like
+1, Both the DPRK and ROK have more than enough unique vehicles to form an independant unified Korean tech tree.
To those asking DPRK to go to China, along with ROK to Japan, please realize that both the Chinese and Japanese TT’s have (especially in the case of the PRC/ROC) insane amounts of domestic designs that could be added, or entirely different nations for sub-tech trees (Thailand in the case of Japan) that would not ruin the possibility of other major nations getting added.
North Korean tanks and aircraft being present in the Chinese TT ultimately means nothing when it comes to adding a unified Korean TT.
For reference, Israel was given the same treatment in the U.S TT before being added. They were relegated to a few premiums/event vehicles.
11 Likes
Meant to reply to this much earlier but I forgot haha
That makes sense; I think I found the same/similar forum pages that used that name. I agree that K1A1 (P) seems better, will change
I agree that it’s not the best photo/evidence, but I might keep it for the time being, I’m unsure. It is premium so it’s not a huge deal. Might look for a separate M48 variant that could be 8.0 actually, maybe an M48A3K with one of the different muzzle brakes. (not that an 8.0 premium is necessary, but nice to have to compliment the 8.0 tree lineup). Thanks for the detail!
They’re great! Could I add them to the main post, with credit? :)
Oops, somehow missed that. Will remove it next time I update it!
Already had the M48A3K firing APFSDS, that’s why it’s 8.0 (+ the LRF). Doubt the round is good enough to be 8.3+ level.
Thanks for the round specifics! Already had it lower due to the lack of thermals and no 3BM42 but nice to know specifcally what it fires. :)
Too much copy-paste. Add them as sub-trees or individual vehicles.
2 Likes
My pleasure :p
The K241’s penetration is estimated at 245mm/143mm @ 0m, making it comparable to the Type 71 used by China’s Type 69.
However, Korean M48s do not have stabilizers.
3 Likes
At least try to look up before you type in
7 Likes
I change my mind. this TT needs to be added
4 Likes
Forget everything i said before
2 Likes
Yeah, that’s why I’m thinking 8.0.
Type 69 is at 8.0 with 100mm APFSDS, stab and LRF.
M48A3K at 8.0 with 90mm APFSDS and LRF.
It’s not the most balanced but that’s a decompression issue, the standard M48A1/A2/A3s are already at 7.7.
