Adding an Australian Tech Tree

Just look a bit higher than your firsts post in there 2 months ago talking about it. I do want and have had thoughts and discussions about this topic outside of this forum.

Unfortunately we are not a financially viable tt, prems won’t sell and we’ll be another player dead nation like Israel, china and a couple others

:Edit: your not the op to my response lmao just realised, but unfortunately for less significant nations in the grand scheme we don’t get to see the light of day much in games apart from those made by company’s from said country. That is the sad reality

I would love to hit up the NZDF and other respective places to get the required information and white papers for vehicles etc and modifications of vehicles to supply to gaijin but that isn’t going to make them consider adding them only mass community support would have that desired effect.

4 people wanting it doesn’t show that it’s something that’d benefit them

Just think they stopped having the yearly ANZAC celebration in 2015/16 so do you think what we would like really matters to them?

If you press the cog on the top right of your text window you will see the option to ‘hide details’.
You can do this by selecting any text in this forum and then clicking said button.

How Israel is currently represented in game is besides the point.
The point is that it was a country that ad it’s vehicles spread out across three other countries yet it got an independent tree.
Similar cases in smaller scales happened too with every other country that got added post launch.

That is not how that works.
The foldering that happened is just tidying up bloated ends of the tree. It is not merging entire lines and thus making space for new ones.

Again: so far we have only had sub-trees as a full vertical line.
Because of the 5-line limit that was confirmed by Smin this means that UK and US have no more space for another sub-tree until a new form of it has been shown off.
We cannot assume such new forms to be added though, as we have not yet seen them.

A Commonwealth tree would be quite a ridiculous proposition for various reasons, but I’d rather not get into that now and stick with the AU/CA/NZ concept.

While it is true that the majority of the equipment that was used by these countries is foreign supplied, this does not matter in the context of War Thunder.
Only a single vehicle needs to exist of any type in order for it to be a valid option in the game.
It doesn’t matter if a country is 10% or 90% foreign supplied, so long as it has enough unique variants or domestic products.
This is why we have so many prototypes in game and why this tree is possible: because of these ‘rare’ vehicles to call them so.

There is the entire Ram family, the AC family, Schofield tanks, LAV variants, Canuck family, Avro Arrow, the list goes on.
This is even without getting into unique and major modifications such as was seen on the Grizzly tanks or the F-101 Voodoo. With how much these were changed it practically makes them different and unique vehicles with a big enough quantity to warrant a tree.

If you wish I could share some tree proposals to further my point, especially on the Canadian side there are some good ones.

Israel isn’t copy paste, it’s just uninteresting.
Gaijin opted to bloat the Magach line and only add Merkavas instead of expanding into light vehicles and tank destroyers more.
These Magachs are unique, but because it was the only thing they had it made them untinteresting.
On the aviation side of things the playstyles of their modified foreign platforms aren’t altered in air battles, but in ground battles they often have much superior CAS capabilities, which does make them unique in that sense. Again, just uninteresting.


The least that can be done is to continue voicing your wishes, regardless of whether Gaijin thinks it’s viable or not.

There is plenty potential to be had with “minor” trees, just look at the popularity of Sweden for example.

While I do agree that it would likely not be considered viable by Gaijin, there are still plenty of people who would play the tree. It wouldn’t be on the same level as some other options of course, but people still play Israel despite their known problems too.
There are definitely superior options to add as mew trees also, but that still doesn’t take away the quality that the AU/CA/NZ concept could provide, whether it is recognized by the (often uninformed) community and Gaijin or not.


I will specify as I have been the commonwealth tree concept is Can/Au/Nz at the time they were all commonwealth (still are) common wealth doesn’t entail a required link to the uk. I’m sure you are as I am aware of what the common wealth is


This text will be hidden

I never said there isn’t enough unique, I said there’s plenty of uniqueness it could bring, that I want there to be an option to experience. I’m just pointing out to most people that the likes of a a-4k despite being basically an entirely different aircraft. Most people would see it as just another a-4. So while all these things are different vehicles/craft “this is just this from this tree” mentality ruins the difference labelling it as c&p. Unfortunately the way the player base sees these things. I would love for so many au/nz versions of vehicles/craft to be added but the way the base looks at that sort of thing makes it basically impartial to be hopeful. I would love to see the Valentine CS MK III a NZ manufactured Valentine MK III with the QF 3 Pounder instead of the QF 2 pounder. But realistically it doesn’t have a place in the game. The A-4K and Ta-4K were upgraded to be on par and as capable as f-16s but they just wouldn’t work well due to that, cause they’re to advanced for 9.0-10.0 due to these modern upgrades, but do not belong fighting in 12.0-12.7 either.

The unfortunate reality is a lot of our stuff from au/nz doesn’t have a place of proper balance in wt bc of what it is specifically

The entirety of the Israel tree besides the one premium raam, merkava and Zachlam are copy pasted, French, USA, Britain and USSR vehicles

:Edit: thank you for informing me of how to quote multiple

Not sure how the Schofield would really work but hey you know about it.

1 Like

That is definitely the reality of the situation, hopefully one day may our voices be heard

1 Like

Wait is that aircraft supposed to be armed?

The Quote:
The CT-4F is powered by a 300hp Continental piston engine. The variant is fitted with glass cockpit avionics, underwing hardpoints and air conditioning systems. Its demonstrator was developed in May 2007.

Listed under Armament
4x underwing hardpoints, stressed for 250 kg (550 lb) each inboard and 150 kg (330 lb) each outboard

PAC CT-4E/F - built in 2007
PAC CT-4F was based on a CT-4E platform but modified, it was a demonstrator built in 2007 probably the model:

S/n 241 - Company Demonstrator

I found a few more missed Australian military vehicles, some even from WW1.

WW1 Vehicles

  • Lancelot de mole tank, 1911-12 (no cannon, just mount a 1 or 2pdr from era)
  • Rolls-Royce Armoured Car “RNAS” (NZ)
  • Vulcan Engineering 1st Light Patrol Car, 1916
  • Vulcan Engineering Daimler 50hp Custom, 1916

Other Missed Vehicles

  • Chrysler M3A5 Grant Lee Dozer
  • Daimler FV703 Ferret Mk2/6 AUZ ENTAC (Ferret with Missiles)
  • Ford S1 Scout Car, 1942 (1 x 0.5in HMG & 2 x 0.3in MGs)
  • Vickers/EASAMS Tracked Waler Concept
  • Vickers/EASAMS Wheeled Waler Concept

I believe that an Australian/New Zealand tech tree would be awesome for war thunder, as we have a great history of modifying US and UK vehicles as well as making some unique vehicles of our own.