Adding an Australian Tech Tree

Hi there War Thunder users, I thought that I would talk about the addition of an Australian tech tree into the game. I will say now that I myself am Australian and am just throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks, y’know. I will do my best to be as unbiased as possible. (Also on a side note, this is quite long as I do go in depth about the vehicles used, but it would be greatly appreciated if you read a majority of it.)

I have looked around recently at past discussions about the logistics of adding an Australian tech tree. Most players and forum users I have talked to/viewed talking about this are somewhat divided on the topic. All of the people that disagree with the idea of an independent tech tree come to the conclusion that it would be an unoriginal combination of both US and British vehicles. While this would be true to an extent, Australia has also had their hand at developing their own aircraft and ground units and collaborating with other countries to develop such vehicles. However the same can be said for Israel.

I will focus more so on the Royal Australian Air Force and give examples on what the tech tree could potentially contain.

Post WWI until the end of WWII, the RAAF did rely on exports from the USAF and RAF (but mainly the RAF) to fill their requirements. Most notably the RAAF made use of aircraft such as the Supermarine Spitfire, P-40 Kittyhawk/Warhawk, Bell P-36 Airacobra, Bristol Beaufighter, and P-38 Lightning; along with many more British and US exports.
At the same time the RAAF was utilizing these types of exports, the RAAF was sourcing aircraft from the CAC (Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation). The aircraft produced by the CAC at that time consist of the CA-1 Wirraway (already in game in the GB tech tree), CA-12 Boomerang (already in game in the GB tech tree), CA-11 Woomera, CA-17 Mustang (reassembled P-51 Mustangs sent to Australia, later greenlit for production in Australia as the CA-21 Mk.24), and CA-15 Kangaroo. (Many more trainer aircraft were produced and could also be implemented into the game).

After WWII and entering the jet age, the RAAF continued to use exports from Great Britain and the US such as the De Havilland Vampire, Gloster Meteor, Martin B57 Canberra, and De Havilland Sea Venom.

However CAC developed their own jet aircraft based on the North American F-86 Sabre. The CAC CA-27 Avon Sabre program was greenlit by the USAF after the failure and cancellation of the CAC CA-23 program (I will explain this aircraft soon). The CA-27 was redesigned F-86 built specially for the RAAF using an altered airframe from the original sabre, as well as an upgraded engine, the Rolls-Royce Avon R.A.7. In theory, the CA-27 would have twice the trust to weight ratio of the F-86.

The CA-27 Avon Sabre would not have been possible however, without the failure of the CAC CA-23 program. The controversy surrounding the cancellation and failure of the program was immense (I linked a video explaining the program and the aircraft and I do recommend that you watch it as it was an extremely interesting concept and aside from my current post, a well produced documentary on the aircraft [u]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjiqdSwMxT8[/u] ). The CA-23 was an intended supersonic, twin seat, twin engine, all weather fighter as a replacement for outdated units in the RAAF.

Entering the Cold War era, the RAAF used export variants of the Dassault Mirage IIID, Mirage IIIO(A) and Mirage IIIO(F) variants. These aircraft were the main units used by the RAAF until the Vietnam War, when the RAAF purchased 24 F-4E II Phantoms and 24 of the iconic F/B-111 Aardvarks. After the Vietnam war, the RAAF made the purchase of 2 variants of the F/A-18 Hornets (soon to be in game), the F/A-18 A and B variants, with 57 of them seeing use.

In the present day, the RAAF utilizes the F/A-18 Super Hornet E and F variants, The E/A-18 Growlers and the F-35 Lightning II. (these are all not coming to the game any time soon but still mentionable.)

Thank you for reading all of this if you did and please do give your opinion on this, I would like to hear other peoples points of view on this.

I was also able to find a concept for an Australian air tech tree made by the user TigerH1_gamingYT. It is a tad difficult to read at first but it gives an understanding of how a tech tree could work.
image_2024-01-21_175851129

4 Likes

Too much copy and paste for the number of unique variants. It is just a mish-mash of UK + US with a few extra unique variants, possibly some nasty BR gaps (minor nation issues).

The unique variants can already be added to enhance existing trees, and more nations is not better in my opinion, in fact it is almost getting out of hand. At least that is what I personally feel.

I understand there are those that would like to see representation of their nation in WT. But as someone that does not play for that reason (I do play UK more but you can tell I cover a LOT of other nations just as regularly) I don’t find it a good enough reason to add more nations unless they are mostly unique.

The ground tree would not be great either, for similar reasons to above.

But that is my thoughts on it. Best of luck!

8 Likes

Let’s say Australian not sub tree for british but as a own tree

Singapore maybe sub tree

Just play US and Britain tree and slap Australian roundels on it…

9 Likes

Not enough unique vehicles to justify australia as its own tree. Especially when its best MBT is already in the US tree and most of its vehicles and planes are in the UK tree.

“But what about israel, that was also the case!”

Yes, exactly. Its one of the reasons israel tech tree was a mistake.

2 Likes

I also thought of it a bit, it doesnt mske sense as its own tree but tather a sub tree. I made this very basic tree, removing the c+p it would make a nice ground sub tree for gbr.

5 Likes

No.

1 Like

Not opposed to the australian sub tree, on the opposite. But how should the issue of M1A1 AIM be solved?

1 Like

Simple do a copy paste, change the default tank camo, give it a slightly different model. Look at all the other tanks shared between trees.

Lets get this out of the way. Are you from Australia?

Would squadron AIM stay in the US tree?

Im not saying it cant be done, its just gaijin first needs to seal with this and it presents a major hinderance. Ergo player proposing solution to this problem (together with the sub tree) would increase chances of success.

Yeah it would stay a squadron there, even though i think top tier squad and premiums is a terrible idea :)
The real problem is when people suggest to add the Australian SEPs

1 Like

To the US? If so, first time hearing about that.

Dont think anybody has suggested them at all. My thought was if they add an aus sub tree to the uk people would then ask for the Australian SEPs, which if added lots would be annoyed about i guess.

1 Like

I mean britain is slowly becoming another sweden and china and to some extent italy air.

Why grind major nations when you can find everything in one tree?

Britain having T-90, Abrams and challengers, possibly canadian leo2s…yeah i can see people being angry.

Yeah, i agree, im all for sub trees but i think they should not extend all the way to top tier, capping at 10.0 or 11.0. I made this tree because gaijin refuse to add british light tanks.The T-90 isnt as bad because its a squadron vehicle, if it was tech tree i would completely disagree with adding it, and im a brit main.

1 Like

As a standalone? No.
Combined with Canada and New Zealand? I could see that working quite well, but still not as good as some other single nations not yet in game.

2 Likes

a joined tech tree with three nations would be dope

1 Like

Literally said in the second sentence,

I think the essay scared me from reading it

1 Like