The Chinese one i linked has it.
You mean paid from the lead-lease debt, Which was massively reduced after the war because the Brits where going to be too poor to ever realistically pay it back, And who also still only finished paying that reduced amount in 2006, 6 years late.
You mean the single premium example and not the TT Chinese, French, or Italian ones? Lol.
Pretty ignorant view of the period as well. You’re ignoring years of “cash and carry”, “destroyers for bases”, the “Tizard mission”, etc.
From a strategic POV, America needed a continental Europe free of the Nazis much more than it needed the money. Even most isolationists of the time understood this.
Im not doubting that, Its just whenever anything related to lend-lease gets brought up here, Its almost always dumbed down to “we bought stuff”.
Also a lot of people who bring up the lend-lease program seem forget the Americans also bought things which is currently massively under represented compared to the other way around.
Terrified it will be “Mobility too crap to not matter.”
And “Armor too crap to do anything.” So it becomes an admixture of just being absolutely dookie.
The issue is a simple one.
If I go to a carpenter and say “I want a table with these dimensions and this kind of wood.” I then pay for the table, take it home, and then use it. It’s clearly my table. The T18E2 going to the US tree is the equivalent of the carpenter keeping the table.
There’s two pilot vehicles that never left the US that could have gone into the US tree instead, but of course US mains never think of alternatives or solutions. They just claim everything. Those are the 37mm version, and the pilot with the 6-Pdr Mk III.
Someone should make a suggestion for this.
Oh, the irony of a british main saying this
“Our stuff” and it’s Leopards, Abrams, F18s and other foreign equipment.
I mean if it’s specifically made and delivered to Canada or Australia then yeah it would be Canadian/Australian.
Again, I would’ve rather a separate tree with Australia, Canada and New Zealand (possibly the commonwealth realm islands as well) but I would much prefer Canada have it’s vehicles available in one spot rather than split in 3 trees.
Yep, this. Don’t blame me for wanting my countries vehicles in one place, or wanting the same treatment for others. That’s Gaijins fault for being lazy.
And I’d rather the game not destroy any national uniqueness adding small trees with no domestic military development.
Australia and Canada both have a good number of modified or domestic vehicles and involvement in notable conflicts.
Despite use of foreign vehicles there’s several vehicles either made or modified by those countries. That’s why we have subtrees like Switzerland, India, Hungary, South Africa etc (even if some are very lacking in what could be added).
That and vehicles overlapping in multiple trees was bound to happen when shifting away post ww2 thanks to joint projects or standardisation between allies (huge example is German air tree). It’s only more noticeable for the USA and Germany as there are far more bluefor trees than redfor or neutral.
Yes, and all of those sub trees have done irreparable damage to the game. It turns into mains, trying to figure out how to get vehicle vehicles their country never used into their tree. Britain doesn’t need four sub trees to patch together a usable tree.
I agree 4 subs in pretty much any tree is too much. What I’m saying is it’s also understandable that Canada (and by proxy Singapore) shouldn’t have to be split between trees.
That’s why I would’ve preferred if Australia and Canada would’ve been a separate tree.
It is understandable that can’t form their own tree and don’t produce their own vehicles would be split up. That’s the most logical and reasonable implementation of countries such as Canada and Australia. The UK tree doesn’t need Abrams and Leopards and F-18s and F-15s and F-16s and anything else I see people asking for.
With this logic Israel shouldn’t be a tree since all of it’s vehicles currently in the air and heli tree are of foreign origin, even with mods. Even a large chunk of the ground are mostly vehicles manufactured outside of Israel. China for a good chunk of it’s air and ground trees also have to rely on other countries equipment.
And again Australia and Canada both have either
Here is a suggestion with Australia, New Zealand and Canada as 1 tree
Planes that Canada, Australia, India, South Africa and UK never operated? Then it couldn’t realistically be added to the UK.
I agree Israel shouldn’t have been a tree.
I see British mains trying to find ways to get those vehicles in the tree. They’re already saying the US doesn’t need the F-15SA and QA, so they should go to the British tree. Some even tried to claim the F-16s New Zeland almost bought.
