That’s cool.
Adding it won’t impact the fixing of existing vehicles either, as adding vehicles are a different group.
-1 No.
Well-written suggestion, bad idea
13 Likes
could be cool in the future but gaijin definitely needs to prioritize fixing the challengers at the moment
4 Likes
+1 because I love chaos and feed off misery.
3 Likes
This is the issue with the game right here, if there’s any issue with one tree they shove it all to US and Germany by just handing out leopards and Abrams. No more of this, it kills the game and for people like me with several trees, im not trying to play the same stock grind 6 times in a row.
TLDR: -1
1 Like
Personally I think an Abrams tank of a Commonwealth nation would be better (Australia), but as that’s currently been achieved, I’d say -1.
4 Likes
+1 for seeing more chaos in the War Thunder forum, and vengeance for unreceived Merlin Mustang and Sabre,
but -1 because we somehow got Australian Abrams.
±0
2 Likes
I decided to go after the Abrams so I’m currently at 11.7 challenger 2. Outside of having better quality thermals how the hell does this thing fair against the M1A1 as they are in the same br lmao it’s extremely slow, having worse ammunition and very small first stage ammo like 4 ammo and after that you reload slower than t-72s.
1 Like
i mean it gets better turret armour i guess? other than that its just gaijin bs again
Turret armor is only useful when hull down, Abrams is just quick enough to avoid getting hit, the Challenger 2 even after two engine and track upgrades, it’s still extremely sluggish so it buys enemy more time to shoot it. The turret cheek might be marginably better when facing common rounds in that br, Abrams just superior everywhere else, like they should be at least .3 br apart
2 Likes
Interesting.
Where was this objection when France got its second, third, fourth, and then fifth F-16 through Benelux?
And I take it now that France has received the Leopard 1A5BE you’d be objecting similarly to the 1A5BE (Mexas) and 1A5BE (P)? As France receiving a Leopard 1 has already been achieved.
There seems to be some strangely inconsistent opinions regarding copy-paste (sorry, ‘unique variants’ - the British Abrams lacks a .50 cal and the commander is wearing different socks or something).
4 Likes
Service vehicles aren’t the same as a trial vehicle or a prototype. Nor did I state I wanted all of these F-16’s, I actually stated before that I would have liked two, maybe three at most.
Once again, personally I value actual prototypes over trial vehicles, and service vehicles as even more important for addition. I don’t see how that’s an inconsistent opinion? Also, most, if not all, of my Benelux suggestions are made for an independent Benelux tech tree (or a folder one).
I am of the personal opinion that captured and/or trialed vehicles should not be added to the game. Domestic prototypes/variants and service vehicles hold a lot more value in my opinion.
2 Likes
Unfortunately, despite your personal opinion on the matter, trialed vehicles do exist in-game and are not particularly uncommon.
Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion and I’m not trying to say yours is fallacious. However, in my opinion, perpetuating ‘a potential addition for a host nation is not wanted / has been made redundant due to a subtree addition’ is only going to further legitimise complaints that subtree additions are directly impeding additions for the host nation itself.
2 Likes
Joke take: we can make the forum explode with a bigger bang if we get British Abrams after Canadian Leopard 2.
So we can delay one or two turns before we get British Abrams.
Well, theoretically, the addition of British Abrams itself sounds if we exclude those copy paste arguement.
Because there are some vehicles that went test stage for being considered but didn’t bought already exists in some tech tree as precidents.
But eeeehh, I want to see Chally 3 Not-Tech-Demonstator faster than our Abrams because we somehow got an Australian one, or some strange modification of Chally.
How about Al-Hussain Falcon?
I mean, maybe we can get Abrams at some moment, but seems this isn’t ‘urgent’
-1
I’ll commend the writing of the suggestion, but I don’t think it’s a very good idea. I’m not the biggest fan of patching up trees with unmodified foreign trial vehicles that weren’t pursued. If it at least had some changes made specifically for the UK, I could get behind it.
I don’t like the idea of adding trial vehicles in general because it becomes an excuse to add any service vehicle to any nation, especially when factoring in sub-tree options and what vehicles they trailed.
At least the Aussie Abrams entered service, and got slightly different rounds from their US counterparts.
4 Likes
What does this Abrams actually do for the British tree? Why do we need a second M1A1?
Being okay with an Australian service one (or two) (with at least a cool camouflage) but not an additional one that was only trialled and never adopted is a valid opinion, no? Should we get a Leopard 2A4 too?
The UK tree is now de facto a Commonwealth tree, which justifies Australian, Canadian, Indian, etc. additions (and we can disagree about whether that’s a good thing all-day long).
However, trialled vehicles are generally widely disliked in the community (see: Swedish T-80U or any of their top-tier helicopters), particularly if they’re bland copy-paste additions that detract from the uniqueness of the tree, like the Swedish T-80U or this British M1A1 (something like the trialled Pakistani Oplot could have been fine if modelled correctly IMO (given there is no Ukrainian tech tree) but Gaijin chose the lazy route instead).
3 Likes
+1 here are my reasons
- This M1A1 isn’t a HC or AIM so it would be 11.7 which would give us a more mobile medium for our 11.7 lineup.
- Since the most basic Abrams in the commonwealth (Australia) is a modified AIM (12.0) we cannot get anything at a lower BR than that, so a British A1 is the earliest Abrams we can get.
- With how Gaijin have treated the Challenger 2’s I feel like they should be 11.3 and our 11.7 lineup can be this and the British T-80U (THAT WE BOUGHT AND TESTED L27A1 AGAINST GAIJIN HINT HINT COUGH COUGH)
- It’ll be funny
- I want the British M1A2 because I don’t like the Challenger 2TD 2019/Challenger 3 we have in game
- 7
1 Like
Well we have the Vickers Mk 7 and might be able to get a 7/2 with the Rh 120 so yes
I know you’re most likely joking but there is a difference between a British-designed and built turret with British components on a Leopard 2 hull, and a trialed unmodified Leopard 2. Point being, we have a 10.7 equivalent to the Leopard 2A4. If no British MBTs existed at that BR and there weren’t any other unique alternatives (e.g. TTD, Arjun, etc.) then maybe a trialed Leopard 2 could be justified. Until someone invents a time machine and gets rid of the Vickers Mk 7, Challenger 1, and others, we shouldn’t get a copy-paste Leo 2.
2 Likes
14 Likes