Oh alright then, I suppose I’ll just continue posting in this thread, as I certainly have some other things I have yet to share that may be of interest. Perhaps later tonight I will do some more research on Thai jeep-mounted anti-aircraft MLRS systems and make a subsequent post regarding it.
1 Like
There are a few missing. But overall amazing work great job man!
2 Likes
I know I’m missing the Th.Bao 21/Scorpion and the Th.Bao 32/Stingray that they stuck wood onto, which could work as premiums. Are there other ones that I’m missing?
2 Likes
the various komatsu carriers
Type 96 APC (both grenade launcher and ATGM one)
EDIT:
didn’t see CCV, but it should be a tech tree vehicle
5 Likes
Tbh, Komatsu LAV with Type 01 LMAT as well as the CCV should be Tech-Tree vehicles and not get locked behind a premium barrier.
4 Likes
I purposely left out both of those. I haven’t been able to find any confirmation that the LMAT is actually attached to the LAV, rather than just being completely supported/carried by the soldier himself and thus not actually a piece of the vehicle.
I left out the Type 96 WAPC for the same reason I left out the AAV7A1, being that they’re just too weak to be stuck at anything other than 2.0-3.0. Even with how small Japan’s potential is, I don’t think its necessary to stick vehicles from the turn of the century around those early BRs. A general unwritten rule I have when making these hypotheticals is that vehicles pass 1940-1945 that are armed only with 12.7 mm, or smaller, or otherwise have generally ineffective and anti-infantry focused armaments such as 40 mm grenade launchers are not added to the trees. They are rarely, if ever, necessary, and otherwise break both the aesthetic and open the floodgates to every random APC or reconnaissance car with anything larger than a rifle being added. The Japanese one doesn’t display that unwritten rule I have effectively due to the lack of vehicles that fit that criteria in the first place, but my incomplete Soviet WW1-interwar and USA WW1-WW2 trees display that a lot better. In the former, the BA-64D and the BA-64 with the PTRS serve as the latest available armored cars, while in the former, vehicles such as the unarmored LVTs, and the later LVTPs and AAV7 are not included whereas the armored LVTs and the sole LVTP-5 with a M19 turret are.
Though, that’s just a personal opinion. Given Gaijin’s track record, I doubt they would be against adding it. In that case, the Type 96 WAPC and the AAV7 would probably be added somewhere between the Ka-Mi and the M24, in the current in-game tree, while the Type 96 WAPC would be stuck after the Ke-Ho/Ke-Ni Kai and the AAV7 would be stuck after the To-Ku in my hypothetical tree.
3 Likes
Btw out of curiousity - Would TH 301/A4 also be a option for the Thai Sub-tree?
It was developed and built in germany by Thyssen Henschel but underwent trials in thailand (same trials the stingray and other Light/Medium Tanks underwent in ~1986).
Spoiler: Images of TH 301/A4 during its' trials in Thailand (circa 1986)
4 Likes
Technically yes, it can also be suggested, but anything is the Devs decision.
3 Likes
Apparently I had the photo since 2019 I didn’t even realize it was the TKX-0006.
1 Like
Even uploaded it here. Maybe there are more things that upload there you guys are trying to find the photos of?
Not exactly what I meant, but still very interesting.
But what I wanted to ask was why “STB-0003” is shortened to “STB-3”, and if there is any reason the same isn’t done to “TKX-0003” to call it “TKX-3”
And you won’t find this confirmations because yes it is not special version of LAV but just simple vehicle where soldiers took some LMAT
But still no problem to use it
2 Likes
Because I haven’t seen that image of the STB-0003 before, but I have seen the images of the TKX-1-000# before.
There are quite a few pics of it around, but they are either in double digit resolutions or after it was converted for another project and hard to make out the details. The blueprints really give us a good look at what’s been changed though.
6 Likes
Of course they can use it, but there hasn’t been a vehicle introduced in-game that has a detached weapon. The addition of the Komatsu LMAT combination would open a new precedent for vehicles that don’t actually have weapons, but do have a random guy just holding one. It would be neat in a game like Enlisted, but it seems out of place in War Thunder that’s focused on the vehicles themselves.
1 Like
Here isn’t really problem with this
And tbh you already added vehicles which breaks limits in game like MPMS which can’t be used without Man-in-the loop at all (and even with FnF because of missing any sights on vehicle) so or adding LAV with LMAT which have no any problem to adding or delete MPMS ¯_(ツ)_/¯
MPMS isn’t breaking a limit since multi-vehicle missile systems are now a thing. It would just use the same system that the Type 81 and other multi-vehicle SAMs use. That’s why the MPMS has a folder without a line between the TADS and TEL, like the other multi-vehicles.
It is breaking “limit” because of missing any sights or radars on both TADS and TEL (this names is incorrect in case of MPMS but anyway). TADS will be just like another Toyota without everything . Also it can’t use LOBL mode while Man-in-the-loop in not added into the game and looks like won’t be.
Yeah, on second thought it would be a different multi-vehicle setup compared to the ones they just added since control over targeting and guidance is divided between two vehicles, rather than being only one complete vehicle.
I would love to get the tent version modeled in game lol.