Well, the US had made dedicated solid nose B-25J variants with the 8 50 cals, and the 75mm B-25G/H
We still had Glass nose B-25Js, so the modifications made was to remove the bombardier station and replace it with 2 x 50s and 2 x 30 cals, or just 4 x 50 cals, so total of 8 forward guns, 4 in the nose and 4 cheek /side fuse guns
They experimented with a 20mm cannon as well, but was not very reliable…
The field mods were inspired from the Field mods for the A20s which was a overall success
That is an impossibility
If AU were to become an UK sub-tree it’d either have to get integrated into an already existing line or have to be scattered across the tree.
Your fault not feeding steroids to the carrier pigeons that distribute your internet…
This cannot happen. With the SA Sub-tree, the UK is full. 5 lines is the max in a tech tree. If you want an Australian sub-tree you would need another nation that they fit in.
Or they figure out a work around like make it a different category
Gajin is a stick in the mud. Do you think that would happen? Hence my “Pseudo-Commonwealth” proposal.
Well, it’s not the exact same thing they mentioned no plans to move SA so I’m going to assume it also applies to inside the same tree.
I cant ever see them doing as a sub tree as Britain already has one i only see it as being
1 Filler for Britain when they lack something
2 Their own tree
I personally hope the Aussies/ANZACs get their own tree.
but if it comes down to having to be a sub-tree there is always Canada which has enough for its own tree.
Just folder them with SA line counterparts or similar BR. Exactly how they could “fit in” an actual UK light tank line as most low SA vehicles are UKs “lights” for those BRs. Only missing item is the models made for the game, SA just got there first I suppose (in regards to light tanks and “running out of lines” in the tree).
This would be fine. Aussie stuff should just be included in the tree where it best fits. As it already does and gaijin and others love to forget.
It’s one of the better ways to implement them, though I still stand by the combined CAN + AUS tree concept
I don’t want more trees. Just look how hard they are to get people playing them and making them competitive across broad br spread. Just look how hard they have to work to try and make Italy, Sweden and Israel interesting and fun to play.
All trees have fair playerbases and none of them are dead, I don’t see a reason why any future ones would be.
I think Gaijin has been doing a fair job with fleshing most trees out and I think that the perceived lack of content for these nations is just that: perceived.
Yes, some are a far cry from what they could be, such is the case for France and Israel. I still think that when compared to initial releases all trees have grown quite nicely.
Especially the addition of sub-trees (though I dislike the way they have been implemented) has seen all of the recipients grow into healthier trees overall.
Yes, the unfortunate case of UK not receiving a light vehicles line is a very real missed opportunity, but the point still stands: the tree got a fifth line that allowed for far greater lineups than before.
Gaijin already stated more trees will be added, might as well make the best of it.
Italy was by far the least played tree in the game and gaijin admitted that. This is a huge reason Hungary was added. Israel came along and it is even played less then Italy was. Both those nations have both been admitted by gaijin to have a very small player base. A separate Anzac and Canadian tree would be the same give or take.
Such may be the case, I still believe it would be a viable choice for the game.
What I speak of isn’t regarding what would be most popular per say, just what I think could theoretically function and what I would personally like to see.
I recognize that this isn’t necessarily what the game needs or what the rest of the community wants, nor do I pretend it is the case.
I agree that AUS + CAN would likely not be played as much as something like Yugoslavia as a fully ranked tree or the Koreas as an Israeli styled, I still do think it would be a functional option.
And while Italy and Israel do have the smallest playerbases, it is in comparison to giants such as USA, Germany and USSR.
I think they still have fair playerbases as I previously stated and I think it will only grow from this point onwards (since Italy received the Hungarian ground sub-tree and Israel just received a TD line that will likely be expanded on soon).
The Italian Israel trees as they have said isn’t a comparison issue its a literal lack of players. They have been concerned how few play them and how their player base decreases over time. Additionally it makes it harder for them to justify content for those trees over other more popular trees if no one is playing the tree.
Especially weird because depending on what was needed, Israel could have been an excellent sub tree for at least three tech trees in game: the USA, obvious connection but they don’t need it. The UK, again obvious connection and they would have benefited from the addition. And France, especially given the early technology transfer, which would also have needed such an addition.
I think Au/NZ would work best as a regional tree taking in some of the other nations in SE Asia that wouldn’t fit so comfortably in Japan or China but have vehicles worth including in the long term (eg Singaporean Skyhawk upgrades).
Imo having a Commonwealth/Empire tree would be too global in nature and would either be thinly spread across many, many different countries picking vehicles from every supplier worldwide, or go the other way and be dominated by just a couple of big players Au & India at the top of the pile.
By spreading out a little it would avoid the Israeli syndrome of being great in theory but thin in reality and suffering from a very compacted player base. But where would Israeli tree expansion come from? Au/NZ would have them beat on that.
Comparison with Italy is probably also fair. An ‘Australasia’ tree would gain in the same way that Italy makes up some ground, player and vehicle wise, when adding suitable countries to make it a wider Southern European/Mediterranean faction.
Australia should never be in any other nations tree other then Britain.
But it is and is part of why this thread exists.
They should have to the UK sub-tree over SA but it’s too late now.
With all the other statements Gaijin has made it’s unlikely a tech-tree will receive another sub-tree. when looking at how sub-trees are done and the limits of tech-trees Gaijin has told us.
So our options now are an independent tree or sub-tree in another related nation. (like Canada)