Hunter IFV should not be in the Israel tech tree

Dev Server "Heavy Cavalry" General Discussion - Dev Server
1

The thread title says it all pretty clearly. Why is that? This is the fourth vehicle with a Bushmaster and Spike, but unlike existing IFV, there nothing special about these one. Armor, active protection systems, and other things.

It’s located at 10.7, where there’s no setup for it. There aren’t a single vehicle or aircraft at this BR. So it goes to the Merkava 3 on 11.3, where you already have three vehicles with Spike, which are better than this Hunter IFV. And I’m sure they’ll definitely raise its BR, which will make it even less useful soon enough.

Plus it should be given to Japan, which doesn’t have a single light tank/IFV above 9.7. That makes at least some sense.

11 Likes
2

Well there’s two levels to this:
On one hand, the Japanese tree absolutely needs it more, and Israel absolutely does not need another vehicle of this kind (doesn’t even get a lineup to put it with).
On the other hand, the logic behind its addition to Israel is rational when you consider the turret was made by an Israeli company and the vehicle has not a single link to Japan.

It depends on which the players value more overall for vehicle implementations in the game, and there will always be people on both sides. Honestly don’t see why Singapore can just be committed to a singular tree at this point.

Does anyone know if Indonesia, Malaysia, or Thailand have any light vehicles of this type which the Japanese Tree can receive?

6 Likes
3

It’s a pity that none of them have fire-and-forget IFVs.

1 Like
4

No.
Theres atmost AV8 with ZT3 Ingwe and 30mm from malaysia, two Pindads from Indonesia which is a cockeril 90 on wheeled and 105 on tracked chassis and BTR4 which is just BTR3E1 but worse.

Spoiler

image
image

image
image1280×854 268 KB

image
image1080×720 141 KB

like has been said before, there is a lot of vehicles in warthunder that have foreign developed parts yet are not in the tech tree of the nation that made them. Lynx is the most common example, but you can also argue that a lot of early russian jets like Mig15s were using reverse engineered rolls royce engines.
Simply having foreign parts (im also pretty sure a lot of T80 thermals had microelectronics imported from countries like italy or france (i forgot which one)) shouldnt automatically put it to that tree, for obvious reasons.
Cockerill for example is a belgian company, does that mean that CTCV, Boxer MGS and others all have to now go to france? Its a very poor argument.

Not only does it need a FnF Spike vehicle more, it wouldnt be far fetched to put it there in the first place.
As i think Stona (maybe smin) wrote these vehicles are meant for a gap filler and will be added to different nations depending on need… what NEED is there for Israel to have another Namer but fast but worse armored.
On top of that since Japan is becoming the defacto Southeast Asian bundle, and Singapore is part of ASEAN org it would still make both functional and thematical sense for them to add it to Japan.

ALTERNATIVELY…
Just add it to both Japan and Israel. Noone has ever said that a gap filler vehicle has to only be added to one nation and one nation only.
Players would not lose anything of value if two minor nations had access to the same vehicle.

2 Likes
5

As gaijin staff has said numerous times over, it is able to be suggested and considered for the German Tech Tree. They only added the Hungarian one then, and they decided not to add a German one due to the PUMA’s presence. Also because they’re stupid, gaijin be gaijin. Stingray is a good successful example of this being properly applied for main nation vehicles. Both of these two examples are based on vehicles finding homes outside of the main tree which is responsible for part of or its whole creation due to the operator nation of said variant being apart of a National Subtree.

Honestly has absolutely nothing to do with Russian development. Reverse engineering and co-development happens a lot, but the nation that developed the vehicle and contributed directly to its creation is what matters here. I mean that’s like saying the J-10s should go to Israel because it used elements of the Lavi program.

Well I mean in this case it isn’t just a part, it’s a whole ass turret. Minor parts alone like a gun aren’t what determines where it lies either, larger sections/ties do. When no vehicle ties exist, it goes to a tree based on other things (Pucara in Germany, simply because Argentine vehicles are already there). Singapore is different, as stated by the developers their plans are specifically to implement each vehicle across more than one tree on a case by case basis. They can choose to add it where it’s needed, or add it to the nation the vehicle shares the most ties with (they clearly chose wrong for this one).

That’s not how that works. The CT-CV 105HP is added under the Finnish flag, Finland is a Subtree of Sweden and it would not go anywhere else because of this. Now if you had a different nation as operating it, then yes it could go elsewhere or two or more versions across trees could exist. Other than commonwealth shenanigans, I’ve never seen a Subtree vehicle be placed outside of its designated Subtree home after it was decided to be one.
Boxer MGS is just ignoring the hull, and that the vehicle is added under the German flag. I don’t know the full history of it, but ingame it’s a German operator nation vehicle, and as such will go to Germany only.

Totally isn’t one lmao, gaijin being gaijin and trying to rationalize poor decisions

1 Like
6

missing the point. The CTCV and Boxer MGS is using a Belgian made

as you have so pointed out, by that same logic CTCV and Boxer MGS would then have the same amount of right to be added for france as Hunter AFV to Israel. Different hull but belgian (and in this case Israeli) turret. Same thing.
The fact that its under finnish flag and boxer under german flag means nothing in the context of the point i was making.
Parts be they large like turrets or engines or small like micro-electronics are going to be by virtue of globalization found on vehicles of other nations. To simply just point towards the turret as the sole reason to add it to Israel makes no sense.
The amount of poor arguments ive seen on the Hunter AFV forum devblog is just maddening.

The best argument you can make for SG vehicles going to ISR is that both nations have had extensive cooperations regarding their military development.
The counterargument to that is that in Gaijins (CMs) own words SG vehicles are meant as gap fillers yet here they fill no gaps. Far better SG option for ISR would have been the F15SG as that would have given them if i am not mistaken an AESA radar capable F15E.

2 Likes
7

But we also know that the original “reason” for its introduction was “lack of light tank in tech tree” - I quote the deblog. Why devs added it - they wanted to do so. Just like they refused to add chinese tank for Japan. They didn’t need reasons, only the desire to do so.

And we can ask, what’s the connection between the Singapore leopard and Japan? Simple. That’s just the developer’s idea. Plus by that logic Israel tech tree should recieve Abrams SEP2 + Black Knight + Leo2A8 bc all of them got APS made in Israel. Thats just silly.

8

I mean I’m really not, as the operator nation it’s being added with matters more here. A German vehicle that’s being designated as German operated is not going to be found outside the German Tech Tree.

But you’re right, they can be:

I’m not too well versed on the exact history of these two vehicles, but if they’re in anyway similar to the case above, they can be added via a separate vehicle under a different operator nation. The ones they chose to add were ones under the Finnish and German flag for those two vehicles respectively, and as such they found themselves in the Tech Tree where those two nations belong.

It does, all German Operator Nation vehicles go to the German Tree, and all Finnish Operator Nation vehicles added after the subtrees announcement and inclusion go to the Swedish Tech Tree. There aren’t exceptions.

Everything else is indigenous. The Turret, which you’re selling as being a much smaller part than it really is, is the only foreign connection it has given it was developed by a foreign nation for it. It’s not the same as them providing the gun or the missiles or an engine etc, they literally designed and made the entire turret for them. That is a direct and strong connection, nothing weak like “oh it has spikes, muh Israeli connection”, or “oh bushmaster, needs to go to US tree”, etc.

It’s a logical addition to the tree. If we completely ignored Japans need for a vehicle like this there wouldn’t be a single problem with its addition really.

That would be an argument for it to receive a Subtree (honestly it should just be, this is a strong argument and I don’t know anybody who wants to see Singapore split up, gaijin should just commit it to Japan or Israel fully at this point), but as gaijin has stated they plan to review vehicles on a case by case basis. Arguments now would be made for each Indian vehicle and their direct links to each nation involved in their development and production or modernization. If a Singaporean vehicle has direct Israeli connections that outweigh other nations connections, and gaijin doesn’t think another nation needs it more (cough what they should have done here), then it has the ability to be added to Israel ingame, that’s just gaijin’s logic atm. What you think about that logic is entirely up to you, all I’m doing is clarifying it so we understand it better for our conversation.

This vehicle doesn’t have a single Israeli connection if I’m not mistaken, it’s entirely US developed. For it to be added to another nation that isn’t the US, the logic of “this nations needs it more” will need to be applied. (And yes it has an AESA, same one found on the Golden Eagle iirc. 8 missiles unless it gets MRML tho, so likely a 14.3 option which seems to be the general consensus)

A Singaporean aircraft that can be added is the F-16D Block 52+, which has been upgraded by Israel to the identical standards of the Israeli F-16I Block 52+, differing in that Singapore has acquired the F-16V radar for it. Easily the strongest Israeli connection to a Singaporean aircraft. (And since it’s just a fat F-16 VIPER it’ll also likely be 14.3, meaning Singapore has no 14.7 option available for Israel, they should rely on Greece for that)

1 Like
9

Gaijin really be like “We did it Patrick, we saved the Israeli Tech Tree!”
IMG_9325

Lmfao

Well no, because you must consider the operator nations, and also that those are extremely minor components. That’s like saying everything to ever use a sidewinder belongs in America, and that would be silly. The logic gaijin applies to how they add vehicles only makes sense when you consider every part of it. The logic for the new Singaporean Leopard was that Japan “needed it”, otherwise the proper way to add it would have been with Germany (or if they wanted to add the one with the Israeli optics but that’s quite a weak link, better logic for Israel would also have been the “it needs it” logic)

10

The vehicle has an Israeli weapon system and should be given to Israel. Singapore is not part of the Japanese tech tree, and whether or not Japan “needs it more” is irrelevant. The Israeli tech tree is tiny and desperately lacking variety, it needs anything it can get and giving them vehicles that were developed in collaboration with them can be a significant expansion (see T-55M3/4, Sabrah, T-72 TISAS etc.).

This idea that the Hunter must go to Japan because it’s from an Asian country is how we end up with atrocities like the T-90, MiG-21 (and possibly Su-30, Rafale etc) in the UK tech tree and Leopard 2s and F-16s for France.

1 Like
11

4th garbage box with bushmaster and spikes on the same BR definitely gonna fix things !

How about adding some ACTUALLY Israeli vechiles ? Pereh, Merkava Barak MK5, light tanks with 105mm guns , Sabra M2, Ahzarit, whatever monstruocities they`ve created from trophies?

1 Like