im talking about the pacific front, against japan, im well aware they got into europe and africa with britian before the first japanese attacks, and this is according to Morvran_ source
Yes, and when we dealt with those fronts, we would have dealt with the japanese with or without Americans in the theatre. Because if you aren’t Familiar, that was a global war. We were well on the path to duking it out with Japan to protect our home whether the US were there or not.
It would be like saying Britain should be a Sub-TT of the US because we sent a fleet of warships to help the US (which ended being basically immune to Japanese Kamikaze attacks so was sent on the most dangerous missions :D )
1 Like
Australia’s obligation to the crown was present from the start and it didn’t end just because the US got big. May not be as blunt in how we word it now, but we are far more likely to enter a conflict with Britain than the US alone, a lot of yanks don’t quite grasp the ties of the commonwealth’s more renowned members to Britain.
but the US was there, and whether you like it or not the alliance is real, and its stronger between the US and Austrialia than between Australia and UK. and for like 80% of the timeframe WT covers (which is also like 90ish% of the timeframe australia is represented in game) the US-AUS alliance was stronger than UK-AUS bond due to necessity
So why are most Australian vehicles in the British TT and not the US TT?
Only 1 Australian vehicle is in the US TT iirc and thats the Abrams
1 Like
Australia joined the US in vietnam while the UK did not actually fight in vietnam.
1 Like
Yes I think its a possibility however the Taiwanese subtree can still receive more vehicles such as the mirage 2000 and the f-ck-1, while as the ground tree was more complete unless they added Abrams (which wasn’t going to happen). I still do think that gaijin may add these planes though, as the f-ck-1 is indigenous to Taiwan and wouldn’t really fit in any other tree.
Want to know the fun lil thing called nuance regarding Vietnam? We were encouraged by the British.
because the commonwealth thing still applies, and my personal belief for this is that any domestic designs from AUS go to GB, and stuff like F111C and M1A1 AIM go to US since UK had little to no involvement in both.
i have 0 issue with the wirraway and boomerang being in UK but i dont really see why the F111 should go since there really isnt any british involvemnt
2 Likes
M1A1 AIM was in US Marine service.
F-111C was never in US service.
There’s a difference.
F111C was not in service with the UK or any of the UK subtrees either. However, the F111C has a direct connnection to the US. its like saying the JF-17 isnt a chinese jet cuz PLAAF never actually operated it
1 Like
Good thing the F-111C isn’t being claimed to be British, it’s being claimed to be Australian, which is a Commonwealth country, thus goes to Britain.
IDK why you would beg for an F-111 worse than the F-111F USA will get.
The latter portion of your post is obvious bait the fact you’re claiming Pakistan is in the game as a sub-tree or tech tree when it isn’t.
britain is not the commonwealth tree, and the JF-17 and F-111C have parallels considering that they are both jets designed and built by chinese and american companies respectively, although neither used it within their own militaries, although i could argue the f111c is more american than the jf-17 is chinese, since jf-17 was pure export while the f111c was a modified american jet. also idk about u but in the teaser i saw the crescent moon on the tail of the jf 17
1 Like
here i found it
Hey good thing there’s already an Australian vehicle in the American tech tree am I right mate?
No, they are not parallels.
Australia is claimed by Britain.
Pakistan is not in the game.
F-111C was never serviced, trailed, or otherwise attempted by US armed forces.
You can keep implying Australia never operated them all you want by generating strawman fallacies, but that lie won’t get you far.
JF-17 was built for all potential buyers including China’s air force as a private venture, unlike F-111C which was built on commission by the Australian government.
So to claim F-111C is an American aircraft is to claim that the Ajax is an American tank. Technically true is not factually true.
@SolareHQ
There are no Australian vehicles in the United States tech tree. There is a Marine Abrams with an Australian paint job.
By both of your logic the Skink should be in the US tech tree, which tells me to ignore your further arguments.
And yes I know the mk/5/1 is aussie and also in the tree, but why on earth would they not give an upgraded version of the f111 to America to compensate for the su24s addition. They’ve done this year after year adding American and Russian counterparts to CAS in their perspective tech tree(su25 and a10, mig 27 and f105, and now the su24 and f111c). And dont even mention the a10c that is being added in counterpart to the su25sm3.
@SolareHQ
F-111F is superior to the F-111C and a competitor to Su-24 while being faster.
F-111C is inferior to Su-24 and F-111F.
Su-25SM3’s counterpart is already in USA: AV-8B, and it’s superior.
F-111C is not an Su-24 Counterpart. Technically the Su-24 is a Tornado Gr1 counterpart.
F-111C is just a filler. Nothing more
They wont add Tornado Gr4 or Harrier Gr9A because Brimstones too OP.
They cant add Typhoon quite yet
They wont add BAE Hawk for some reason
They cant add Jaguar Gr3A due to ASRAAM.
As we cant get F-111K, are unlikely to get TSR2 and the V-Bombers are also very unlikely, its a reasonable alternative to them