Why the distinction?
Give us our Spitfire back then! Maybe even the Mustang! British vehicles in the British tree!
The same reason the Leopard C2A is in the German tree and not the British tree.
The Spitfire is from the closed beta to represent the US volunteers that flew them in combat before the US joined the war. Again, completely different than the AIM.
I agree it is the same reason, but we are talking about different reasons. The actual reason is GJN don’t have a set rule and just pick and choose on a case by case basis, normally resulting in them shafting the UK.
The Italian Tree has a German built Hungarian BF109. Why are you not crying about that?
I am laughing my ass off at this. The LF IX was implemented AFTER the US joined the war in 1942. This is not different to the AIM in any way. The LF IXc was a British Spitfire that was provided to the US through lend-lease. The M1A1 AIM was an American Abrams that was provided to the Australians through lend-lease.
The Swedish tree has an entire line of foreign export tanks, used by Finland.
Aside from being a hypocrite US-main, is there any reason why you don’t have a problem with Sweden receiving lots of German, British, and Russian tanks which served in Finland?
Aussies whining??
Colour me surprised… not!
The US has a tree in game. The Australians do not. It’s that simple.
Which is why Britain acts as the Commonwealth tree, and what’s your proposal on the T-90 that’s coming to Britain? Does that need to go to the USSR?
I have a major issue with copy and paste subtree but Finland is a subtree, Australia is not. The British tree already has the South Africa sub tree.
It should be in the USSR tree but at least the Indians built it under license. The Australians don’t even build it under license.
HMMMM I WONDER WHAT TIE THERE IS BETWEEN THE UK, SOUTH AFRICA, AND ALSO SOME OTHER COUNTRIES, OF WHICH AUSTRALIA IS ONE OF?
When do Aussies even whine?
I don’t have any words
The Australians are not a subtree.
Britain is not a subtree of USA, why are there British vehicles in there?
I know you’re going to pretend you’ve always held this stance, because you’ve realised how much of a hypocrite it makes you look, but I’m sure if I went through your comment history I would find you’ve never once mentioned this as an issue.
Every time someone beats them :)
Do they need one?
