even if, that doesnt mean you can disregard their addition completly because it suits you.
That will always be secondary justification for a subtree; as there are many subtrees that actually dont bring that much variety to playstyle. Benelux didnt bring any variety to france for sure.
Historical and current political and defense ties play bigger role and are more important. Its for that reason why Greece, South Africa, Hungary or Thailand werent announced as subtree for US for example, even if it would add “variety” to the US.
Also its clear that what matters the most are current relations, which need to be at least neutral or friendly. Theres no subtree that currently has a beef with main TT it finds itself in, historical beef seems to be fine.
The only current thai vehicle diverging from the general japanese playstyle is oplot (and thai VT-4 in the future), which wasnt added solo but as part of the thai subtree, and its a vehicle thailand operates.
Clearly the “variety” wasnt the main drive behind the decision.
as part of warsaw pact, which killed off most if not all indigenous development of armored fighting vehicles in favor of licensed soviet equipment.
Same happened with Czechoslovakia and the TVP project.
again, “mysteriously” decided to no longer operate and procure soviet/russian equipment after the dissolution of the soviet union in 1991.
what
Because
A) its old export soviet equipment. T-72M1 is what, 1979? And OP is asking for 2008(?) italian IFV, and historically asked for Leopard 2A8, tank that was unveiled just last month.
These are not equal.
B) Hungary procured most of the western tech as NATO member.
If you insist on some “equivalent exchange”, sure, russia can get NATO equipment from 1979 through some of the warsaw pact nations that operated NATO equipment during that time frame.
uh, sure.
Which Hungary historically operated.
and as I already said, thats secondary justification to add a subtree.
what
hard cutoff is interwar period as thats where the TTs start.
no its not irrelevant. I will give you benefit of the doubt and say you did not intend to misguide other readers, but Leopard 2PL isnt in german TT because poland is subtree to germany; Leopard 2PL is in german TT because its Leopard 2.
As Smin often describes it,“it isnt a subtree, its just where the vehicles are placed for now”.
If poland ever gets announced as subtree/tech tree, Leopard 2PL will likely be removed. Sure, its a squadron vehicle so theres no precedent for it; but theres precedent for vehicles being removed from TT once the operator country turns into proper TT - see most of the israeli tanks before the addition of israel, or Strv 81 before addition of Sweden.
speed difference, warhead difference, difference in quality of the missile thermal camera, difference in additional guidance modes - do you want to imply none of these are relevant?
Thats funny because Kh29s are much closer contemporary to Mavericks than Mavericsk are to Kh38MT.
using brimstone in current top tier GRB will only get you killed.
Brimstone launched from max range, which is like 15km at 5km alt (well within the range of new air defense systems) will take whole minute to reach target.
Its much better to simply close the gap flying nap of the earth and then attack with them at much closer range.
and even then they will be completly outclassed by AGM65s as you can attack only one target at time, cant break the LoS with target due to SAL guidance, and you cant fully defend in case you get attacked.
Thats not equivalent situation however. One is question of technical comptability of weapons on already existing export variant of an aircraft; other is entirely different vehicle.
no, forums has rule to not discuss politics. which we are currently doing, even if not directly, so we could both get banned.
And I agree, at least to a point.
Malaysian Su30 is unnecessary.
Bhisma is neccesary evil as india is official subtree and they operate those so to deny them would be like denying VT-4 to thailand.
indeed they were.
however the vehicles in the TT, such as german T-72M1s, dont represent modern 2020 bundeswehr, they represent 1979 NVA, they are tanks NVA operated during that time period.
position being clear does not inherently mean its right.
potato tomato. my point with that sweden TT was to demonstrate that “some” copypaste is sadly neccesary in order to introduce some standalone TTs that wouldnt exactly fit a subtree either.
sure, balance can be goal, but the logic for aircraft munitions and their additions were laid out and are understandable.
moreso, aircraft munition is still entirely different matter to a TT.
So why not push for those? Why must OP go out of his way to type out post suggesting NATO stuff?
