Don’t know. North Korea should go to China though.
Didn’t want to answer at first because this got merged into the united korea topic and I already went on a tangent above. It’s impossible to explain why it’s not a good suggestion here. PRC/ROC does actually make sense when both fought Japan, and GDR was merged into FRD with it’s equipment. Here there’s no basis.
The main ideas is the
South Korea → USA
North Korea → China
United Korea tree
(my idea I’m pushing)
United Korea + SEATO (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, & Philippines)
The best case IMO - lots of new stuff and place for other minor Nations.
2 Likes
Everyone Forgets SEATO though some nations got given to Japan. South Korea was very involved with the whole SEATO Indochina affair. North Korea the same one could say it was a bit of a shadow war between the two.
To bad my SEATO flag emblem suggestion got canned but I will wait and try again if the SEATO idea takes off. Would be great with infantry mode coming as all the nations have a mix bag of small arms industry Vietnam loves modifying there million m16 rifles into grenade launchers.
The SEATO Flag looks like something out of Anime Political Space Opera Epic
anyway would be a cool decal on the door of a Helicopter or tank in game!
anyway would be a cool decal on the door of a Helicopter or tank in game!
But I don’t think a sub tree of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, & Philippines as a United Korea sub tree would cause a riot unlike if we where to put the Philippines in Japan for example (pls no riot). The reason for the Philippines as a sub tree is funny enough they where one of the big winners from the collapse of South Vietnam getting a lot of free military equipment that the USA did not want falling in the hands of North Vietnam (therefore China and USSR). But had no interest in shipping it all the way home pus SEATO and others. Its interesting @WreckingAres283 are interested in the SEATO idea thanks! 😀 Its likely a bit early to make a sub tree for a nation that does not exist yet in game though.
1 Like
Maybe, but at least from a development perspective Gaijin should keep an end goal in mind and make sure that it’s in line with other nations. For that I don’t think it’s weird to consider a subtree already.
2 Likes
I’m not Gaijin for them though yes. I mean which I am not suitable to do write a suggestion for a SEATO (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, & Philippines) sub tree for United Korea tree. If you or anyone’s else wants to make a suggestion go right ahead or a discussion post I could set up for vehicles and air. I don’t know your pick. Issue being I read up on the area but I likely am not the best equipped to make a suggestion post for vehicles I know a bit more about small arms.
8 Likes
They apparently tested some sort of new super shell. Don’t know why it got 2 grenade launchers you would think some sort of heavy mg + a manpad would be ideal with drones hunting these vehicles.
they didnt factor in drones during their last ground vehicle design programme ~ hence no anti-air capability for the SPH and the Chonma MBTs has anti-air ~ mainly to ward off helis and CAS + to look more intimidating/capability dense (i.e both atgms+manpads outside the turret ~ but remember, such cludge setups coz those were designed pre Russo-Ukr conflict, when they had limited outside assists)
–but yes, going forward, in the next design revision/update - cope cages & anti-drone add-ons would be the first thing they’ll adopt
2 Likes
Sub tract that the grenade launchers are strange for a vehicle of that type. Then again Korea is a mountainous country so infantry might be sneaking around and they would be useful but its like placing a bayonet on a .50cal a bit strange.
info about this arrangement is abit escaping me atm (just came back from the Tankfest pilgrimage) - but usually Soviet-esque nade launchers are more typically used as indirect mortar type fires than like Mk.19 - which is used mostly (but not exclusively), like a grenade machine gun or HMG
1 Like
7 Likes
Tanks make sense for a grenade launcher a SPG don’t know. Mortar style grenade launchers would be more useful in a mountain as enemy may hide behind a ridge a .50cal cant arc enough to hit them. Sacrifice questionable anti-air for pure anti-infantry. North Korea may fear infantry infiltration but likely anything can be mounted if desired making a pure grenade launching mount would be to say the least strange.
Cheonma-2 is such a strange tank as it keeps changing it looks ever increasingly like a K2 / Leopard tank. I do believe its a real tank and not some strange body kit or wish,com as people forget North Korea has a real industrial scientific base. Yes they likely got help from Russia and China but North Korea has to put it together and plan it out they also seem to be putting ideas from the drone war to use as the top has ERA there drones like to hit. I would keep a eye out for any strange additions with this thing as Russia and China have next gen MBT projects and if they are able to get someone to test something this is a way to do it. Also some experts think this vehicle started as a Iran North Korea project and then split. Has there been anything new of late from this tank?
Also I would love a 3D flag decoration in game you could bolt to your tank or drape over it. Would be funny to see players slap a pile of them to one vehicle and wonder why they can be seen across the map.
2 Likes
The official names of North Korea’s new main battle tanks are the Cheonma-2 (initial version) and the Cheonma-20 (upgraded version). The designation “Cheonma-2” was officially confirmed in May 2025 during Kim Jong-un’s inspection of a tank factory, and “Cheonma-20” was officially revealed during a military parade in October 2025.
Since I am from South Korea, I am quite confident about the accuracy of these details.
2 Likes
The name was not revealed by the KCNA article describing that visit, nor was it seen in any photos. You’re welcome to share a photo or source confirming that name.
That also doesn’t make sense, because the model KJU inspected in May 2025 was the pre-production model that is more or less identical to the production Ch’onma-20 seen in October 2025, not the 2020 or 2023 prototypes.
1 Like
If you look at this Real KCNA Article, i’m not sure whether you can recognize it but as a native Korean Speaker I can see it saying <천마-2> which means “Cheonma-2”.
2 Likes
++ Bulsae-5
1 Like
Maybe, but it’s the same problem as the other signs — they’re far too blurry (it’s what got people thinking Ch’onma-3 was a real name as well). As it stands, the only confirmed name is Ch’onma-20. Other display signs prior to May 2025 seem to show《천마-2#》 (‘Ch’onma-2#’)
Logically it should make sense as well, and to me, having the prototypes and pre-production vehicles (which varied wildly) be named the same (Ch’onma-2), while the production variant, only slightly different from the pre-production variant, gets a different name with no obvious pattern (2 → 20), doesn’t make much sense.
1 Like
I love the ATGM vehicles question is would they be any good in game as most of the maps people want are knife fight ranges. One could label it a light tank and give it drone as most ATGM related stuff have adopted them as a intel gathering source. (The hay incoming armor get ready! though the Bulsae-4 in Ukraine from the few videos of its use has a targeting drone)