I'm not sure on why you and Baljak are so obsessed about short-stroke engines.It would by nice to have a comparable Korean short-stroke tank engine to rival MTU.
Yes, their throttle response could be better since they are short-stroke but low-end torque always favors the long-stroke given equal-everything else. DV27K's problems/deficiencies were/are not caused due to its long-stroke design, but rather stems from the inferior design and manufacturing capabilities of Doosan Infracore in the field of heavy duty high-speed diesel engines. There are plenty of good long-stroke designs out there around the world.
As for the contemporary western Tanks the British use the long-stroke CV12 as well. Talking about square or short-stroke engines, for example the ADVS-1790 was a square engine, and was a design of very long history. It's engine block could be stemmed back to the mid 20th century. Another American diesel by Continental, the AVCR-1360 was short-stroke but had a complex VGT design and needed a lot of its output used on cooling. French also had a short-stroke design in their SACM V8X but it also has a complex and expensive gas-turbine like turbo design for performance boost. MTU went from long-stroke in MB873 to short-stroke in MT883 but as I've said other German diesel manufacturers like MAN have some different approaches. So there's hardly a single answer when it comes to engine design, especially the bore-stroke ratio, unless we are talking about very specific purposes like motorsports or marine applications. For one the US went long-stroke with the Cummins ACE, although it should be noted that this thing is opposing piston so its characteristics are quite different from traditional diesel.
Apart from that, we could generally be happy about the fact that HHI took over DI.