But still😭
1 Like
Who is “we”? Are you french?!
2 Likes
You what? Putting Korea and Japan together? They barely begrudgingly tolerate each other at the best of times!
10 Likes
Still same argument, even after the official confirmation…I would say, get real.
6 Likes
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.
9 Likes
I think people keep forgetting that Gaijin uses Nations, not States to determine tech trees
1 Like
Heu…
The main issue is does Japan really need a 4th subtree when there’s still plenty of Thai, Malay, Indonesian and Japanese additions left?
8 Likes
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.
1 Like
Already confirmed to be an Israeli subtree.
7 Likes
oh ok that’s great
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 just want to play the NK Su-25 mate
8 Likes
this is not true, and i cant believe you got so many people agreeing with you. I can call some Korean friends to refute this.
4 Likes
Cheonma-2 got another update:
More APS chargers, no side turret ATGM launchers, no UFP ERAs, narrower gun mantlet and ERAs on roof.
8 Likes
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.
2 Likes
Kinda looks like an Abrams in this picture. Probably because of the color I guess
1 Like
other side:
pop up bulsae?
5 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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.