There are a few that would be nice for completing line-ups. But Id prefer they focused on the unique stuff from those nations than the C&Ps at the moment. Like the LAV III would make a good high tier IFV for us which i think would be of more use than a premium leopard or something (for now)
LAV would be nice but if we had the Leo and the Abrams we’d have all of the big name MBTs except the Leclerc. (no one cares about Chinese trash)
Yeah… But we have too many MBTs at the moment, short of a production Chally 3. Id prefer they focused on things like IFVs, light tanks and SPAAs for the foreseeable future
Personally I’d prefer to get Canada and ANZACs trees or a combined Canada & ANZAC tree but after all that to the UK is better than the other options.
2 Likes
It’s not like the US or Germany need those vehicles.
2 Likes
Here’s the thing: I get why, but I fundamentally disagree. I’m a bit of a purist. I’d much rather us get some obscure (to most people) prototype MBT than a Aussie Abrams for instance. I understand why people want an Aussie Abrams in the Brit Tree, I just don’t agree. If it’s unique (in the sense it’s not just another country’s (commonwealth!) version of a particular vehicle) then by all means add it. But I don’t want Britain to become a mangled collection of T-90s, Leopard 2s, Abrams, etc etc since that’s not what the British tree encompasses.
What I really want is some consistency. By putting the Aussie Abrams in the US tree, but the Aussie Aardvark in the UK tree, Gaijin is basically saying fuck consistency, we’ll just arbitrarily distribute these commonwealth vehicles wherever we want.
We already have the Indian T-90, so we might as well get to complete the collection. Neither the Leo nor the Abrams in question are top tier vehicles anymore, but having the variety would be nice compensation for suffering through the UK tree and it would suit the British Museum spirit of collecting stuff from across the world.
2 Likes
I don’t get it. We’ve been asking for CVR(T)s for years. What more is there that we can do to make that point?
What, are we gonna have to ship a Scorpion out to their offices and drive it through their front door?
4 Likes
or a Scimitar
and we shouldnt have to view it as an either or scenario. Rightfully we should have both a collection of MBTs and more light tanks/SPAAs
The worst bit about the Aardvark is it makes no sense. An Aardvark is a distinctly American aircraft (and had been to that point) - if they wanted Britain to get a Vark, it could’ve been an F-111K, which is out and out British as opposed to semi British. It’s not as if that was out of the question, it blatantly existed. It didn’t make it to full scale production but it was there
(Which annoys me as is, as it’s subjectively Britain’s best 10.3)
I mean… I don’t get why they wouldn’t add both. The turrets are slightly different (because well, they had different guns) but one of said guns already exists in game (RARDEN my beloved) and the other literally is a short barreled 76 (watch them screw the HESH up on that. Speaking of which, something is wrong in the world if I can get 3 “penetrations” on an IS-2 and not kill it with 183mm HESH.)
At this point we’d need to drive like everything non Russian through their front door to prove it exist to them.
Even the prototype stuff the existed but was destroyed for security reasons.
So we’d need to rebuild the entire plane/tank or get a time machine.
So that waves goodbye to any Vickers Mark 4 possibilities then. God sake.
1 Like
Aardvark actually made sense for Brit Tree. Australia used it as our mainstay forever (much longer after the USA + one of the 2 that operated them) and ours was a heavy custom. I understand why they didn’t add Abrams to Brit tree. But they were better off just calling it the Export Version and not tacking Australia onto it. YES Australia requested modifications to the base hull and yes they were added. The USA then used what mods we added to their versions. Almost what they did for the Pig, but still slightly different.
And I agree. Customs should be added before mainstays. Which is probably why Commonwealth Countries are pissed our Uniques are not in the game.
However. We will still have this issue of the Uniques being OP due to Brits cannot have good things. XD
2 Likes
They did also say that a part of the reason we got it, was because Britain was in process of buying the F-111 as well. The F-111K Merlin and canceled the order (2 partially built airframes). So its not close enough for Gaijin to add the F-111K. But the F-111C was an alternative to that “british” aircraft
It is kinda annoying playing Sim and you play Russia but everyone except the USA have Soviet tanks…
I always imagine angles are at play, especially when fighting someone who isn’t brain dead, nor do most WT engagements happen at 1Km, it’s usually between 30-500 meters
And then they up tiered it unnecessarily and ruined it
Along with many ww2 US vehicles
1 Like
Fox is just too small, too mobile and has too much pen on its rather fast firing autocannon.
Things like BTR or others are not really comparable. BTR is just huge, pretty easy to spot and to hit. Also lacks the pen necessary to do these kind of annoying ambush kills. Similar for Wiesel, XM’s etc.
Also M18 is less annoying: Even if very, very mobile…the single shot gun can’t be abused to get these kind of multikills you get in a Fox.
I’ve got a match where Fox used its super warpspeed to get behind the enemy team on Sweden and almost killed the whole team single handetly. No one could track this thing nor was he expecting it to pop up from behind just a minute after match start. Its just boom boom boom…fu this high pen rapid firing gun vs. WW2 tanks. There is no vehicle which might pull off similar stunts.
1 Like
i mean the pershing at 6.7, jumbo at atrocious BR of 5.7, and m18 at 6.0
i dont have a massive issue with the fox but i think its roughly at f14 iriaf level and even thouhg it is fun to use it is bound to have something done to balance it
1 Like