They hold the only weight on this debate, as this are the rules for sub trees.
Again it is still it is not german vehicle, it is DUCH it is very much the issue here, the netherlands in not a part of the “German coalition tree”.
Like is said all of your historial “sources” is meaningless as DUCH vehicles are to be placed on the French tech tree, also dont pretend that the duth army doesnt have any ties with the french army, even if they cooperation is not as deep as with the germans they share more with the french than most sub tech trees in game
It was “buffed” because it had a place holder armour from the dev server had literally no protection… and they also use different protection package that the german ones.
I have seen users in this thread counter my idea by claiming the German coalition faction has only existed for a decade. However, per official records from the Dutch Ministry of Defence, the 1 (German/Netherlands) Corps was formally founded in 1995, meaning it has existed for 30 years now. You can check the official source here: https://english.defensie.nl/topics/i/international-cooperation/other-countries/1-german-netherlands-corps. This timeline-based argument holds barely any credibility at all.What’s more, the AH-64E can definitely be added to the game as a German vehicle. The command structure and operational deployment of the entire Dutch-German joint corps are led by the Bundeswehr, while the Netherlands merely acts as a cooperating participant. Equipment allocation and troop organization all follow Germany’s military framework. Judging by the existing precedents of distributing vehicles across factions within the game, it is fully compliant with current rules for the leading nation of a joint corps to include shared equipment, with no need to label it Dutch or create a separate Dutch sub-tree.
We can take Russia’s APS-equipped T-90 as a frame of reference: what year did this tank enter official service, and how long passed before its in-game release? The gap between its service entry and addition to the game is less than five years.
From my observation, the threshold for adding Russian vehicles has gradually lowered year after year, whereas the standards applied to vehicles from all other nations are noticeably stricter, creating an obvious gap in inclusion standards. Besides, it is clear that the dev team has gotten far more adept at reusing existing vehicle templates and offering vague compromises to smooth over community disputes. Given that the dev team readily adds newly commissioned, active-service hardware from various nations in short order, rejecting the AH-64E solely due to the supposedly short existence of the German coalition faction lacks logical justification. Anyone opposing this proposal purely by citing the faction’s founding timeline is relying on contradictory reasoning.
In terms of arms trade scale, the core frontline ground equipment of the Dutch Army mainly consists of German-made platforms, including Leopard 2 main battle tanks, Boxer infantry fighting vehicles and PzH 2000 self-propelled howitzers, which have been purchased in large quantities over decades with unified logistics, ammunition and maintenance systems matching the Bundeswehr. The only major Dutch arms purchase from France concerns submarines, with no standard French equipment adopted by the Dutch ground forces. The gap in the volume of shared military hardware between the two partnerships is substantial, making them incomparable.
When it comes to joint military exercises, the two forms of cooperation are fundamentally distinct and cannot be conflated. All three Dutch combat brigades are permanently incorporated into German divisional formations. Under the framework of the permanent 1 German-Netherlands Corps, integrated garrison and joint training on German territory are carried out year-round as an institutionalized arrangement. By contrast, Dutch-French military drills are merely temporary multi-party exercises under NATO frameworks, without permanently combined combat units or exclusive long-term joint training schedules, representing a significantly lower level of military integration.
A clear dividing line also exists in defense industrial cooperation. Germany and the Netherlands align procurement criteria and share maintenance and component supply chains for land combat vehicles such as tanks, IFVs and artillery pieces, forming comprehensive long-term defense coordination. Industrial collaboration between the Netherlands and France is restricted exclusively to submarine programs, with no joint development or synchronized fielding of primary army combat hardware.
The most fundamental structural difference should not be overlooked: the 1 German-Netherlands Corps, a standing joint operational command body that has operated for thirty years, places all Dutch armored combat units under German operational authority, fully integrating Dutch ground troop organization and equipment systems with Germany. No permanent joint ground military formation has ever been established between France and the Netherlands, whose bilateral defense ties are limited to basic arms trade.
The argument that Dutch-French defense exchanges outweigh the links of most subtree nations within the game deliberately disregards the massive inherent structural gap between these two types of partnerships. This comparison lacks valid supporting logic and cannot substantiate the claim that Dutch vehicles ought to be assigned to the French tech tree.
When players previously submitted feedback regarding weak modeled protection for MEXAS wedge add-on armor on vehicles such as the Leopard 2A5, Leopard 2 PSO and Strv 122, forum moderators established a universal judging standard for all detachable bolt-on external armor: any post-production modular armor mounted externally, which can be fully dislodged under impact, only serves as a simple spacing buffer and cannot receive meaningful standalone protection bonuses against APFSDS or HEAT rounds. Only factory-integrated base composite armor inside the hull and turret counts as core defensive protection.
This blanket rule was strictly enforced for years. Even when players provided real-world technical documents proving MEXAS wedges function to disrupt shaped-charge jets, all requests to adjust their protection were rejected under the premise that external add-ons deliver negligible practical defensive benefits.
However, the release of the Indonesian Leopard 2RI fully overturned this universal rule set by Gaijin. Official dev blog text clearly states the full-vehicle AMAP-NERA bolt-on add-on modules greatly improve front and side protection against shaped-charge ordnance, and the game does grant dedicated protective bonuses to this removable external armor kit.
Crucially, the AMAP-NERA modules fitted to the Leopard 2RI share identical mounting design with the MEXAS wedges on the Leopard 2A5: both are aftermarket bolt-on modular armor that can be completely stripped away under heavy impact. Gaijin itself created an official precedent confirming detachable external add-on armor qualifies for separate protective benefits.
With this precedent set by the developers, we hold valid grounds to request a unified, consistent armor evaluation standard across all vehicles. Some community members argue there is a generational technical gap between older MEXAS spaced composite and newer AMAP-NERA non-linear composite armor, which is historically accurate, yet this argument cannot resolve the core logical inconsistency of Gaijin’s conflicting rule sets:
When reviewing MEXAS-related reports previously, moderators never applied a tiered evaluation system based on armor technology; instead, they enforced a blanket rule denying substantial protection values for all external add-ons. Gaijin only introduced this tiered technical reasoning after launching the export Leopard 2RI, which implicitly acknowledges the original blanket rule was flawed.
A generational performance gap only justifies smaller protective bonuses for older MEXAS kits, not near-zero defensive efficiency. Historical data confirms MEXAS wedges are engineered to interfere with HEAT jets, so the game should assign scaled, realistic protection values rather than largely disregarding their functional effect.
Both armor variants are modular bolt-on solutions developed by German IBD Deisenroth Engineering for Leopard 2 variants. There is no objective technical justification to apply separate evaluation criteria for domestic German Leopard 2 add-ons versus export Leopard 2 add-ons.
To conclude: Gaijin cannot arbitrarily pick and choose how its armor rules are enforced — applying strict restrictive standards to older domestic Leopard 2 external armor while loosening restrictions to grant protective bonuses to newer export Leopard 2 add-ons. Now that the precedent of granting defensive benefits to detachable bolt-on armor has been officially established with the Leopard 2RI, Gaijin should unify its armor modeling rules and revise the underrepresented protective performance of MEXAS armor on vehicles including the Leopard 2A5 and Strv 122 in line with real-world technical capabilities.
It means ‘it is flawed, but OP does not want to listen to your counterargument’
Mate, no matter whether you German mains have an irl connection in the Netherlands or not, it just cannot happen unless Gaijin dismiss the BeNeLux subtree to France idea itself.
bro, it seems Poland’s AH-64Es barely have deep connections with Germany, and there is no solid evidence to support adding them to Germany’s tech tree.
Again dude all this cooperation still doent make the ah64e a german vehicle, this is simple fact, they are operated and owned by the dutch, who they fall in the comand role is meaningless, you can cope all you want but the fact is like it or not the Netherlands is a frech sub tree just like Switzerland is a german sub tech tree.
Likw it or not this is how sub tech trees work in war thunder.
Gaijin has revised the game’s evaluation standards many times and keeps lowering its balancing thresholds. Numerous judging logics and detailed rules have been adjusted since 2020, which is one of the reasons I chose to make this thread now. On a side note, other tech trees may also receive unexplained vehicle additions or premium vehicle lineup fillers in the future. Perhaps then many players will understand the current awkward situation of the German top-tier tree, this is just a personal rant.
Iirc the only vehicle that was ever added on 2 trees at the same in the same version is the finnish ITO in the french and swedish tech trees. But even that was before sweden had an official subtree.
