uhm… no? i literally listed some of the vehicles italy and spain/brazil worked on together or have connections with. i’m pretty sure you can read, Spain and Brazil no connections with italy? my friend you might aswell dig a bit up history before talking
If Italy was involved in the creation / sale, I have no complaints, but you add, for example, ASCOD (Spain/Austria), Leopard 2 (Spain/Germany), EE-9 (Brazil), Mirage (Spain/France), YF-17/F-18 (Spain/USA), what do they have to do with Italy?
Spain
WW2
Italian involvement in Spainish civil war, spain using Italian aircraft. Spain also used several Italian trucks and light tanks, in some occasions also making their own modifications of vehicles either with Italian turrets or with Italian armaments.
Coldwar-modern day
Italy and Spain co-operate in several military fields such as with the Pegaso VEC, it using Italian turrets (SIDAM-25, OTO TC-20 in both 20mm and 25mm form license produced in spain). The B1 Centauro and buying its extended family in the form of the Freccia ARV, the IVECO facilities there which most recently came out with a new MLRS system based on an Italian truck. Their IFV program tested Italian Hitfist turrets. Spain also was part of the Eurofighter program with Italy. The A129 Tonal program initially had Spain joining, and put in service several Italian made Agusta helicopters such as the AB-212. Spanish companies regularly co-operate with Leonardo, some years ago a new IFV turret was developed with them. Spain also shows interest in the B2 Centauro to replace their B1’s. The Spanish Navy uses a lot of Italian equipment.
Brazil
WW2
Brazil used several Italian aircraft during the era, some being made by Savoia Marchetti. Brazl also used Italian CV33 tankettes and other Italian equipment. They also helped liberate Italy during the end stages of the war.
Coldwar-modern day
Brazil and Italy had even closer military ties after WW2, Brazil bought several Italian aircraft such the the MB326’s, worked closely with each other and developed the AMX, which is still in service today in Brazil with their own updated variant. OTO Melara helped develop several military vehicles with their expertise such as the EE-12 Sucuri II, which uses the 105mm cannon made by OTO Melara, later used on the B1 Centauro. Speaking of which, Brazil tested the B1 Centauro in the 2000’s. Brazil nowadays uses the Iveco Guarani, Iveco Lince, both Italian products with their own variants with different armaments. Brazil recently also purchased several hundred B2 Centauro’s, of which 2 test vehicles will be sent to them soon. Brazil is likely about to make an order for the M346 aircraft by Leonardo, Italy is interested in buying the C-390 Millennium. Brazilian F-5’s use the Selex Grifo F also owned by Leonardo. Lastly but not least the Bernardini company was founded by Italian immigrants, which without them would’ve likely not lead to many of the wacky prototypes made by Brazil.
End.
5 Likes
The problem here is that he thinks that a sub nation only has vehicles made in cooperation but that’s not the case as shown with South Africa, quite the opposite.
Otherwise I need an explanation about the Swiss Hawker inside the German TT and the Eland inside the UK TT.
P.S. the ASCOD platforms inside the suggestion are the ones mounting italian turrets.
1 Like
Thank you for of course, but read my last message, and answer the question, along with the author of the topic
Eland Mk - Manufacturer, Sandock-Austral - became part of BAE System (England)
Hawker - The national aircraft, which served until 2000, is related to England, but due to the lack of German attack aircraft, it got there
ASCOD - Components don’t affect anything, so no, in this case, the tower of the combat vehicle
Ah yes, applying rules how they fit your wacky vision, of course.
1 Like
Well, that is, you deny the logic here?
Except there isn’t any kind of logic here, you just find excuses case by case and applying rules you make on the spot when Gaijin doesn’t care who made the vehicle when it comes down to subTTs.
Eland- The manufacturer just produced a copy of the french vehicle and only later on was bought BAE, therefore it doesn’t makes sense.
ASCOD - the whole turret isn’t just a “component” and you can’t mount a turret on a vehicle without the help of the maker.
Hawker - it’s the most glaring example on why your “logic” doesn’t apply and doesn’t make any sense, with you even admitting that Gaijin just gave it to Germany because they were missing a vehicle.
Yet again, subTTs don’t apply to such rule, the vehicles inside a subTT are the ones used and produced by a nation, doesn’t matter the connection with the main TT country(vehicle wise ofc).
Also I’m quite curious of your reaction if Gaijin actually implements Romania and Hungary inside the ITT, I want to hear your explanation on how soviet made vehicles make sense inside it.
Has the design been banned for a long time? Lmao
Serious? Let’s look at the TH-495 combat vehicle, which has an Italian turret, but for some reason made by a purely German enterprise, without inviting specialists from Italy, it’s strange, however
Can you tell me in that case what would be a better fit instead of a Hawker?
Not bad, since Italy will have a chance to compete with other countries, albeit with the addition of, for example, Leopard 2.
P.s The armament of the USA and the USSR was distributed all over the world, and the whole world used it, so you don’t even need to consider them
very good work yes pls
I have no idea why and where your complaint come from, you are “applying” rules for subTT that gaijin never even considered, you are implying that every single vehicle in a subTT should be connected in some way with the main TT. Apart from this non-sense you are saying that portugal has better links to italy than spain(?) completely ignoring all the ACTUAL connections EVEN CULTURAL between Italy and the two countries the subTT is made of… I have no answer for your question since it makes literally no sense
1 Like
Spain would be a good subtree. But Brazil I disagree
1- Brazil was part of the allies during the ww2 while italy was on the axis side, mixing the two countries will be a mess in SIM battles.
2- Yes, there are vehicles with collaboration from Italy, but 95% of the vehicles in this sub TT are based on American vehicles, the rest being developed by Brazilian companies using French and British components.
3- Many people already complain about the presence of American vehicles in the Italian TT, with the addition of Brazil it would be an Israel 2.0.
In my opinion, like Argentina, Brazil deserves a separate TT (or South American TT), due to the diversity of vehicles with collaboration, origin and components from different countries.
A Espanha seria uma boa sub árvore. Mas o Brasil eu discordo
1- O Brasil fez parte dos aliados durante a segunda guerra mundial enquanto a itália estava do lado do eixo, misturar os dois países vai ser uma bagunça nas batalhas de simulação.
2- Sim, existem veículos com colaboração da Itália, mas 95% dos veículos deste sub TT são baseados em veículos americanos, sendo o restante desenvolvido por empresas brasileiras usando componentes franceses, britânicos, etc.
3- Muitas pessoas já reclamam da presença de veículos americanos no TT italiano, com a adição do Brasil seria uma Israel 2.0.
Na minha opinião, assim como a Argentina, o Brasil merece uma TT separada (ou uma TT da América do Sul), pela diversidade de veículos com colaboração, origem e componentes de diferentes países.
2 Likes
The reason we decided to choose Brazil and Spain is due to the close collaborations that these two had with Italy from a very long time. Brazil is deemed a good candidate also due to the amount of interesting vehicles that play similarly to the style of the TT.
The only other option would be to transform the ITT in the safeheaven of the mediterrean nations: Spain, Greece and Turkey.
The point is to have western nations with actual western tank as the community over the time accepted the inclusion of american tech as part of the history of the italian army.
What the community doesn’t want is russian tech.
1 Like
1-Italy itself already have some variants of the Sherman given to them after the war, and it isn’t a worry to Gaijin for simulation battles.
2-South Africa does have some vehicles that are made by themselves and even made in collaboration with other countries (such as the Rooivalk, which is a collaboration with France).
3-Both countries (Spain/Brazil) have many unique designs, and modifications to already existing vehicles that makes them also unique. And they don’t need to add more copy paste tanks, because unlike magachs, they don’t need too much of them to support the whole tree.
4- I can’t help but imagine that a South American TT would be full of gaps and also copy paste vehicles, specially at mid-high tier. Like, there aren’t any top tier tanks that could be added to them, the most modern tank they have is Chilean Leo 2a4, or maybe the Osório 120, which was compared to the M1 Abrams, both 10.3 vehicles…
2 Likes
Brazil has vehicles from several different nations. the partnership with italy really represents a lot, however, we cannot forget gepards, grippers, f-5’s, mirage. Leopards, m41 caxias.
In addition to personal vehicles from Brazil.
in short, the most suitable is a TT for Brazil only, or a TT for South America. Putting it in italia is just looking at part of the package and trying to square the whole package based on that part. Does not make sense
2 Likes
I highly appreciate everything what improves the Italian Air TT for Props as this is a classic example of a minor TT (meaning played by less players) suffering from gaps and overtiered vehicles with way too high repair cost.
From my pov all of these suggestions of sub-trees try to strengthen line up’s of certain nations in order to be able to compete with the big 3 nations.
From a holistic pov these efforts are just trying to fix flaws of gaijin - combined with some healthy patriotism it looks like there is nothing wrong with that.
What i see is that with every sub tree the already highly fictional game play gets even more worse. It is the same story like with captured vehicles - at a certain point of time there is simply no no connection of irl and game play left.
If you buy a US 109 F-4 you face the same plane on the German and Italian side and a you meet similar Romanian 109 G-2 and a Finnish 109 G-2. Same story with P-47s or P-51 Cs. Where is the realism?
I mean gaijin implements sub-trees simply to earn money and allocates minor nations or vehicles mainly on income projections and obviously sometimes just on a case-by-case decision; historical, technological or cultural similarities play imho only a role if they are suited to “sell” a decision.
So from my perspective the Nation set-up needs to be changed - meaning that the player can combine in his line up certain nations that make sense (and maybe switch them) at various point of times - so without adding sub-trees and attaching one Nation fixed to another.
Anyway, i wish you guys good luck with your project!
PS: Imho you should add the already implemented P-47 D-30 in the TT…
1 Like
I would much rather have Spain & Portugal in standalone Tech Tree rather than being Sub-Lines under Italy. This could be either Spain housing Portuguese vehicles, or an Iberian Tech Tree however Snail desires. Plus technological cooperation between Italy and Spain are not that great.
This was actually made some time ago and I’ll need to update in due time so yeah I’ll try to add and adjust the TT with the updates that have been already made.
I feel you but this could be said about many other nations, our is just a proposition on how these nations could be implemented in the game.
Maybe Gaijin wouldn’t even add Spain in any other way otherwise, we just don’t know.
Therefore the proposal to integrate it in the ITT is a win-win situation for everyone, the spanish players get to have some rappresentation ingame, that could be off the table otherwise, and the italian players get to have more competent and fleshed out lineups.