That would be fore other users.
Ajeya Mk1 and 2 are copy-paste candidates.
The T-90MS I forgot about cause I forgot India made some… a copy paste candidate of T-90M.
The rest are the vehicles my post was addressing.
I would keep India as part of UK, I can’t imagine India being a separated tech tree when 5th generation fighter jets come to the game and the Forums not being turned into hell, if Gaijin actually is planning to add those vehicles.
1 Like
Chakra Rath-BMP (Rank IV; BR 7.0):
A private venture by the OFB (Ordinance Factory Board) to create a wheeled APC based off a BMP-2 chassis.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x 30mm 2A42 Autocannon (AP-T, APDS, HEF-I)
- 1x 7.62mm PKT Machine Gun (Coax.)
- Armor:
- 5mm - 30mm (RHA, CHA)
- Mobility:
- 73 km/h Forward
- 12 km/h Back
8x8 CBRN (Rank V; BR 7.3):
A APC built by Mahindra as their submission for India’s MIFV competition, to find India’s new APC.
Stats:
- Armament:
- [RCWS Autocannon To Be Determined]
- 1x 12.7mm NSV Machine Gun (RCWS)
- Armor:
- [DATA UNKNOWN] (STANAG)
- Mobility:
- [DATA UKNOWN]
Kestrel WhAP (Rank V; BR 7.3):
Indigenous design TATA’s submission to the MIFV competition to replace India’s BMP-2s, and is currently in service in its WhAP (Wheeled Assault Platform) configuration, however further variants are planned.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x 30mm 2A42 Autocannon (AP-T, APDS, HEF-I)
- 1x 7.62mm PKT Machine Gun (Coax.)
- Armor:
- STANAG I - STANAG IV
- Mobility:
- 100 km/h Forward
- 10 km/h Forward (in Water)
- [DATA UNKNOWN] km/h Back
Kestrel UT-30 (Rank V; BR 7.7):
A variant of the Kestrel, now equipped with a UT-30 turret, introducing advanced optics and FCS.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x 30mm ATK Mk.44S Autocannon (APDS, APFSDS, HEF-I)
- 1x 7.62mm PKT Machine Gun (Coax.)
- Armor:
- STANAG I - STANAG IV
- Mobility:
- 100 km/h Forward
- 10 km/h Forward (in Water)
- [DATA UNKNOWN] km/h Back
Medak (Rank VI; BR 8.7)
A heavily upgraded/modified Sarath BMPs produced by Ordinance Factory Medak, using an improved 30mm gun, better ATGMs, advanced eletronic systems, and a updated and better protected chassis & turret. Created as a current proposal for india’s FICV program, as a new IFV for india’s army.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x 30mm 2A42 Autocannon (AP-T, APDS, HEF-I)
- 2x ATGM Launchers
- 1x 7.62mm PKT Machine Gun (Coax.)
- Armor:
- [DATA UKNOWN] (RHA, CHA)
- Mobility:
- ~70 km/h Forward
- ~20 km/h Back
Sarath II (Rank VI; BR 9.0)
A heavily upgraded/modified Sarath BMP for india’s FICV program, see new technology/equipment, better armor, gun system, etc.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x 30mm 2A42 Autocannon (AP-T, APDS, HEF-I)
- 1x 9M113 ATGM Launcher
- 1x 7.62mm PKT Machine Gun (Coax.)
- Armor:
- [DATA UKNOWN] (RHA, CHA)
- Mobility:
- ~70 km/h Forward
- ~20 km/h Back
Abhay (Rank VII; BR 9.3)
A Tech Demonstrator built by India to prove its capabilities to build a APC. Program saw much success, and the APC had proven itself as a powerful vehicle, but was ultimately never adopted.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x 40mm Bofors L/70 Autocannon (APFSDS, HE)
- 1x 30mm AGS-17 Automatic Grenade Launcher
- 2x BEL/MILAN ATGM Launcher
- 1x 7.62mm PKT Machine Gun (Coax.)
- Armor:
- ??mm - ???mm (MCA, HHA, Titanium, DHSA, AFA, Composites, ERA)
- Mobility:
- 70 km/h Forward
- ?? km/h Back
Zorawar Mahajan (Rank VIII; BR 10.7)
The Zorawar Light tank under testing, losing the Nag missile launchers and the side pontoons.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x 105mm Cockerill 3105 cannon (APFSDS, HESH, CLGM)
- 1x 12.7mm NSV Machine Gun (RCWS)
- 1x 7.62mm PKT Machine Gun (Coax.)
- Armor:
- ??mm - ???mm (Aluminum, Kanchan Composite, STANAG 5)
- Mobility:
- [DATA UNKOWN] km/h Forward
- [DATA UNKOWN] km/h Back
Zorawar LT (Rank VIII; BR 11.0)
India’s newest light tank and response to the Chinese Type 15. While currently in testing, it is stated to enter service later in 2025.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x 105mm Cockerill 3105 cannon (APFSDS, HESH, CLGM)
- 2x Nag ATGM Launchers
- 1x 12.7mm NSV Machine Gun (RCWS)
- 1x 7.62mm PKT Machine Gun (Coax.)
- Armor:
- ??mm - ???mm (Aluminum, Kanchan Composite, STANAG 5)
- Mobility:
- [DATA UNKOWN] km/h Forward
- [DATA UNKOWN] km/h Back
ACV IP Mk.IIA (Rank I; BR 1.0)
One of the first ever indigenous armored vehicles built by india, the ACV IP was built in the thousands and served in the East Indies and in North Africa.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x 14mm Boys Anti-Tank Rifle (AP, AP-T)
- 1x 7.7mm Bren Machine Gun (Pintle)
- Armor:
- 8mm - 14mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- 90 km/h Forward
- ~40 km/h Back
Garuda 105 (Rank III; BR 5.0)
A Mobile Light Howitzer System designed by Garuda to operate in mountainous regions
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x 105mm Garuda 105 Howitzer (HE, HE-VT)
- Armor:
- 10 - 20mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- 80 km/h Forward
- 40 km/h Back
M-46 Catapult (Rank III; BR 5.7)
The Vijayanta Catapult is a Self-Propelled Howitzer that was used by the Indian Army from 1981-2021, being a lengthened Vijayanta hull with the turret replaced by a rearward-facing Soviet 130mm M-46 Howitzer. 100 systems were built and saw deployment in Operation Parakram in 2001 and Operation Zafran. Now-retired, the system has been replaced by the Arjun Catapult System and K-9 Vajra SPHs.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x 130mm M-46 Howitzer (AP, HE, HE-VT)
- Armor:
- 10 - 100mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- ~45 km/h Forward
- ~10 km/h Back
TATA L/52 (Rank III; BR 5.7)
A Light-Weight Howitzer on a TATA truck, designed to operate in the mountains and deserts of India.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x 155mm L/42 Howitzer (HE, HE-VT)
- Armor:
- 10 - 30mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- ~45 km/h Forward
- ~10 km/h Back
M-46 ACS (Rank IV; BR 6.7)
The Arjun Catapult System is a Self-Propelled Howitzer that is in service by the Indian Army, replacing the previous Vijayanta Catapult Platform. Using a Arjun MBT hull with the turret replaced by the same rearward-facing Soviet 130mm M-46 Howitzer, the Catapult System sees much improvement in its protection and mobility. 40 systems are currently in service alongside the K-9 Vajra SPH.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x 130mm M-46 Howitzer (AP, HE, HE-VT)
- Armor:
- 10 - ???mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- ~60 km/h Forward
- ~40 km/h Back
Jonga 106 (Rank V; BR 7.0)
A locally-produced jeep designed by Nissan equipped with a 106 mm recoilless rifle, seeing combat in several wars and border clashes with Pakistan.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x 106mm M40A1 Recoilless Rifle (HEATFS)
- Armor:
- 10 - 20mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- ~80 km/h Forward
- ~40 km/h Back
Ajeya GCT F1 (Rank V; BR 7.7)
A Ajeya hull with the turret of the AUF1 SPH… Interesting…
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x 155mm GCT F1 Howitzer (HE, HE-VT)
- Armor:
- 10 - 130mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- ~60 km/h Forward
- ~5 km/h Back
Jonga SS.11 B1 (Rank VI; BR 8.0)
A locally-produced jeep designed by Nissan equipped with three SS.11 B1 ATGM Launchers.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 3x SS.11 B1 ATGMs
- Armor:
- 10 - 20mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- ~70 km/h Forward
- ~4 km/h Back
Gypsy AT (Rank VI; BR 8.3)
A locally-produced jeep equipped with an ATGM Launcher.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x 9M113 ATGM Launcher
- Armor:
- 10 - 20mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- ~70 km/h Forward
- ~40 km/h Back
Windy 505 (Rank VI; BR 8.3)
A locally-produced jeep equipped with an ATGM Launcher.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x ATGM Launcher
- Armor:
- 10 - 20mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- ~70 km/h Forward
- ~40 km/h Back
Mahindra Striker (Rank VI; BR 8.7)
A locally-produced jeep by Mahindra equipped with an ATGM Launcher.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x ATGM Launcher
- Armor:
- 10 - 20mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- ~70 km/h Forward
- ~40 km/h Back
BRDM-II Striker (Rank VI; BR 9.0)
A Upgraded Imported BRDM-II equipped with ATGM launchers.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 5x ATGM Launchers
- Armor:
- 5mm - 10mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- 100 km/h Forward
- 10 km/h (In Water)
- ~40 km/h Back
NAMICA TD (Rank VII; BR 10.0)
The Tech Demonstrator of the NAMICA Anti-Tank Missile Carrier, using a BMP-2 chassis to carry the indigenous F&F, Top-Down, “Nag” ATGM.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 2x “Nag” ATGM Launcher
- Armor:
- 6 - 30mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- ~72 km/h Forward
- ~12 km/h Back
NAMICA (P) (Rank VII; BR 10.0)
The Displayed Prototype of the NAMICA Anti-Tank Missile Carrier, now using a improved telescopic launcher system to carry the indigenous F&F, Top-Down, “Nag” ATGM.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 4x “Nag” ATGM Launcher
- Armor:
- 6 - 30mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- ~72 km/h Forward
- ~12 km/h Back
NAMICA (Rank VII; BR 10.3)
A Anti-Tank Missile Carrier using BMP-2 chassis to carry the indigenous F&F, Top-Down, “Nag” ATGM.
ACV IP Mk.IIC (Rank I; BR 1.0)
One of the first ever indigenous armored vehicles built by india, the ACV IP Mk.IIC now has a speciallized turret with a elevated machine gun.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x 14mm Boys Anti-Tank Rifle (AP, AP-T)
- 1x 7.7mm Bren Machine Gun (Turret)
- Armor:
- 8mm - 14mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- 90 km/h Forward
- ~40 km/h Back
Ferret ZPU-2 (Rank I; BR 1.7)
A Nepalese Light AA vehicle, using a british ferret and soviet ZPU-2 gun system.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 2x 14.5mm KPV Machine Guns (AP, AP-T)
- Armor:
- 12mm - 30mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- 58 km/h Forward
- ~40 km/h Back
TATRA ZU-23-2 (Rank III; BR 5.0)
A TATRA truck equipped with a ZU-23-2… SHEEEEEEEEEE-
Stats:
- Armament:
- 2x 23mm 2A13 Autocannon (AP, AP-T)
- Armor:
- 5mm - 20mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- ?? km/h Forward
- ? km/h Back
Improved ZSU-23-4 (Rank VI; BR 8.3)
Russian Export ZSU-23-4 upgraded a new engine and Israeli radar and targeting system.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 4x 23mm AZP-23 Autocannons (API-T, HEF-I, HEFI-T)
- Armor:
- 8.9mm - 9.4mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- 55 km/h Forward
- 9 km/h Back
TATRA AK-630 (Rank VI; BR 8.7)
A TATRA Truck equipped with a Russian naval AK-630 on the back, mainly used for training.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 1x 30mm AK-630 Rotary Cannon (API-T, HEF-I, HEFI-T)
- Armor:
- 5mm - 30mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- ?? km/h Forward
- ? km/h Back
Armado BDL (Rank VI; BR 9.0)
This is a modification of the Mahindra Armado that has a lengthened bed and is equipped with a Thales StarsStreak missile system in the back.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 2x StarsStreak AA Missiles
- Armor:
- 5mm - 20mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- ?? km/h Forward
- ? km/h Back
Trishul CV (Rank VII; BR 9.3)
The Trishul CV was a SAM Carrier for the Trishul SAM, developed in the 1980’s, and seeing limited service in the 2000’s.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 4x Trishul AA Missiles
- Armor:
- 6mm - 30mm (RHA)
- Mobility:
- 72 km/h Forward
- 12 km/h Back
SAMAR I (Rank VII; BR 10.3)
A TATRA truck with two R-70s strapped to the back… wack.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 2x R-70
- Armor:
- 7mm - 10mm (RHA, Armoured Glass)
- Mobility:
- ?? km/h Forward
- ?? km/h Back
SAMAR II (Rank VII; BR 10.3)
A TATRA truck with two P-27Ts strapped to the back… somehow more wack.
Stats:
- Armament:
- 2x P-27T Missiles
- Armor:
- 7mm - 10mm (RHA, Armoured Glass)
- Mobility:
- ?? km/h Forward
- ?? km/h Back
I think you’re going way too off-topic, in my opinion the topic should’ve been regarding Israel.
6 Likes
ok
All Mk.3’s should be like - 11.0 ngl. The earlier Merks should have their BRs reverted and the 2D moved back to 9.7.
2 Likes
Im going to take a really quick jab at your logic here and ask whenever you think premium vehicles should be better than their TT counterparts (and as such, making the game pay to win).
3 Likes
Let me respond briefly to that line of reasoning and respectfully challenge the assumption behind it. When exactly do you believe premium vehicles should be worse than their tech tree counterparts to the point of being outright uncompetitive? Because if the logic is to avoid “pay-to-win” scenarios, then making a premium tank functionally worse than every other vehicle in its BR including tech tree tanks from lower tiers is not balance; it’s negligence.
Let’s be clear: no one is asking for premium vehicles to be overpowered. We don’t expect them to dominate or carry entire matches. But a premium vehicle should at minimum offer parity with its BR — it should be viable, competitive, and fair to use. It should not be a punishment for the player who invested real money into it. That’s just bad game design, and it borders on disrespect to the player base.
Let’s take the Raam Segol as a case in point. This is a BR 11.3 vehicle that is worse in survivability, optics, mobility, and internal layout than many tech tree tanks one or even two BRs below it. Its ammo placement makes it a death trap. Its thermals are weak. Its massive profile is hard to hide, and it can be frontally penned by tanks at 10.3. Meanwhile, it’s expected to compete against 12.0 lineups? That’s not a challenge it’s a guaranteed loss.
Now contrast that with the Russian tree, where vehicles like the 2S38, T-72AV (TURMS-T), and even older premiums like the T-55AM-1 are often superior to their tech tree equivalents, with better thermals, survivability, or firepower. The same goes for US premiums, like the M1A1 AIM or the RDF/LT, which are highly effective and comfortably hold their own at their BRs. These premiums deliver value and performance appropriate to their cost which is what any reasonable player expects.
No one is saying the Raam Segol needs to win games on its own, but it should at least stand a fighting chance. As it stands, it feels like it was intentionally made to underperform and that raises serious concerns about consistency in premium vehicle design. Can anyone honestly name another premium vehicle that feels like it’s deliberately built to make the game harder for the person who paid for it?
At the end of the day, people aren’t paying to win. But they also shouldn’t be paying to lose.
still not a subtree, the canadian leo and australian abrams are placed where they belong
2 Likes
it a CAS nightmare, though… Send a KH-29T Air to Ground missle 180KG of TNT and it just absorbed everything from the top of the turret.
I still think India and Israel should be in the same tech tree after a certain BR. They share too much tech today not to be together at the top tier.
1 Like
And all that would be fixed if they added ✨nation folders✨
1 Like
I dont.
Avoiding pay to win scenarios in any freemium game can never be a bad thing for players.
Just because it is premium doesnt mean the vehicle should perform the same as every other vehicle in its BR.
Taking this example to the extreme, look at premiums like Panzerwerfer 42. There isnt a BR where this thing would be competitive, so if premium tank = cant be functionally worse than every other vehicle in its BR and should be viable, competetive and fair to use, it would need some artificial buff, which is not a good thing.
Of course top tier premiums and MBTs are more naunced but i just wanted to get a point across.
Anyway
Premium status should have absolutely no bearing on vehicle balance, be it Raam Segol, Clickbait or TURMS.
Premium vehicles should not have any special privileges when it comes to their balance.
Take look at Clickbait vs. TT M1A1HC. These tanks are identical as far as i know bar Clickbaits unique decorations and premium status and as such they should always share the BR and any balance decision about their kit. In no way shape or form should Clickbait recieve preferential treatment over M1A1HC just because its premium.
If you want to argue that Raam Segol (and 11.3 Merkavas in general) isnt competetive, sure go ahead.
Just dont build your argument off Raam Segols premium status.
Besides- holy Jesus, use Spoilers, scrolling down past that felt like that intro scene from Spaceballs where the starship just keeps going for like 2 minutes lmao
5 Likes
I have had bad luck when fighting the Raam sagol. I shoot it and my shot bounces or does minimal damage and then they look at me and one tap me.
1 Like
Small off topic, but they DEFINITELY spent some bucks on that render :P
Actually, I’ll agree with you in general terms. Yesterday, I took the time to thoroughly review Israel’s entire ground tree, and the situation is quite concerningb especially in top tier. The Merkava Mk.3s sitting at BR 11.3 simply make no sense. These are vehicles that cannot compete fairly with others in that battle rating. In my opinion, they should be dropped to 10.7 at the very least, and honestly, they could easily fit into 10.3 or even 10.0, if not for their main gun, which still performs decently though even that isn’t enough to justify their current placement.
From my own experience, I’ve taken out Merkava Mk.3s with little effort using even older T-72s, which says a lot. The armor protection on the Mk.3 is far below what you’d expect from a modern medium tank, and its lack of mobility makes it an easy target in nearly any scenario. If it at least had a decent thermal sight, one might be able to compensate for its weaknesses, but it doesn’t. So what we’re left with is a slow, poorly protected, and under-equipped vehicle that simply cannot hold its own in 11.3. It’s not that these tanks should be the best in the game but they should at least be able to compete with others at the same level.
To put things into perspective: when I play top tier with Israel, I get much better performance out of the Merkava Mk.2D, which is theoretically an inferior tank. Yet it somehow holds up better, absorbs more damage, and I’ve even gone toe-to-toe with T-80s both tech tree and premium and survived. Its gun might not always penetrate, but at least it gives you time to reposition or react. That’s already more than the Mk.3s offer. That contrast speaks volumes.
Also, when I play against Israel whether with Germany, Russia, the U.S., Sweden, or the UK I almost always win. The Israeli ground tree is noticeably weak overall. That said, there’s an interesting proposal floating around suggesting the addition of Chile into the Israeli tech tree, adding local or modified German vehicles to provide more versatility and depth. I don’t think that would suddenly make Israel the best nation in the game, but it would help them climb out of the bottom in terms of performance and make them a far more viable and appealing tree to grind.
And honestly, I agree with the general consensus: maybe Israel should never have been a standalone tech tree in the first place. But now that it exists, it should be balanced properly and at least offer a basic level of competitive gameplay. Ironically, the only branch I’ve genuinely enjoyed so far is the Israeli air tree, which is essentially a blend of the U.S. and French lines well-structured, but without breaking balance.
I’m going to nitpick here. The M1A1 HC is better because of the dozer (Eats even full-calibre APFSDS) and a lack of clutter on the roof. But otherwise identical.
Yeah, the thing is with the Merkavas is that their in-game armor is far better than it is in the protection analysis.